Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THURROCK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL
POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

WRIGHTSON NMA LIMITED BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 205 relating to Private Business (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the

Third time.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return
of Experiments performed under the Acts 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1973.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned during 1973.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Welsh Oil Advisory Committee

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many times the Welsh Oil Advisory Committee has met.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The committee will be formally constituted within the next few weeks and hold its first meeting as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. What real powers will the committee have to regulate the taking on of oil if and when it starts to flow? Further, what powers will the committee have not only over the extraction rate but also over controlling oil revenues from the Celtic Sea? Does the Minister think that this committee will develop into a more powerful body than the present advisory committee?

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman may be slightly confused. This is an advisory committee whose powers are to consider the whole range of environmental and related issues. The proposals in our White Paper on oil are designed to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the committee, when appointed, is representative of the whole of Wales territorially—North Wales, Mid-Wales and South Wales?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, we recognise the importance of the committee's being so representative, because we think that is an issue which transcends the question of immediate areas which might be affected by the development of oil itself.

Mr. Hooson: Is there any prospect of any oil flowing, before we build castles in the air?

Mr. Rowlands: We are not building castles in the air. There are good indications that there is oil under the Celtic Sea, and we should be foolish to under-estimate its importance.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the headquarters of the Welsh oil authority should be located in South-West Wales in the same way as the Scottish one is to be located in Scotland? Would it not be a most helpful step forward if such an undertaking were to be given?

Mr. Rowlands: We will have to see how things develop. There will be a presence of the BNOC if and when the occasion arises.

Agriculture

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his functions relating to agriculture in Wales in connection with the EEC.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): My responsibilities for working out agricultural policy for Wales are shared with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and are precisely the same as those of my immediate predecessor, although I have decided as Secretary of State for Wales to exercise these responsibilities personally. These joint arrangements provide for full consultation on all agricultural matters relating to the EEC so far as they affect Wales.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that I tabled a Written Question to him on 11th July asking him to take steps to ensure that Gwynedd was included as a priority agricultural area within the EEC and that this Question was transferred to the Secretary of State for Industry, who gave me a very inadequate reply? Is he not aware that the farmers in Wales will be rather surprised to hear that he does not have direct responsibility for them within the EEC and will be shocked to hear that they are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Industry?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. Had the Question been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, he might have had cause to be shocked. The Question was transferred to the appropriate Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Alec Jones: Can my right hon. and learned Friend indicate, with regard


to the functions which he exercises in agriculture, what sort of control, if any, he has over the activities of the Forestry Commission, since he will probably agree that there is much concern in some urban valleys of South Wales concerning recent developments by that body?

Mr. Morris: That is another question, but I am aware of the concern to which my hon. Friend refers and the particular case he has in mind. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are looking into points he has raised during the past few weeks.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Welsh agriculture is facing another crisis? I am sure he is aware of the Written Answer I received from the Minister of Agriculture stating that he is not reintroducing the guaranteed price system for beef. Does not the Secretary of State agree that this is an opportune time to have a Minister of State for agriculture in Wales?

Mr. Morris: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has previously canvassed for a Minister of State for agriculture. I have made the point clearly when he was absent from the House that I am Secretary of State for Wales and that I have taken personal responsibility for agriculture in Wales. I would also point out that a Secretary of State ranks before a Minister of State. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the welcome received in Wales to the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in his latest Brussels proposals.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: How many meetings of the EEC Agriculture Ministers has the Secretary of State attended? Does he plan to attend any further such meettings before the end of the year, unless there are intervening circumstances?

Mr. Morris: With regard to agricultural discussions in Brussels, the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom are represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I have been to Brussels recently to examine for myself the whole range of issues concerning the Principality.

Steel Closures (Task Force Reports)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has yet received the report of the task forces appointed by his predecessor to assist in dealing with the consequences of steel closures; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The task force reports were submitted to our predecessors and are now with my right hon. and learned Friend. They will be considered in the light of progress and decisions on the detailed review put in hand by the present Government of the British Steel Corporation strategy and in particular of the closure proposals which formed part of that strategy.

Mr. Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many jobs and prospective jobs have been created in the steel towns since the task forces were established? When will he follow the oft-repeated advice of the Secretary of State for Wales for the Government to get off the back of the British Steel Corporation and allow it to get on with its massive development programme?

Mr. Jones: Disregarding the political point at the end of that supplementary question and speaking in terms of the employment consequences, even on the most pessimistic assumptions there could be significant employment consequences for the three areas concerned in Wales. We are determined to tackle these problems. It is now almost a year since the reports of the task forces were completed, and they will need to be up-dated to take account of the review and any changes in local circumstances which have taken place. That is the situation.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the meantime made matters very much worse for the Shotton area by the simple expedient of doubling the regional employment premium which will provide a still further differential against Flintshire which does not have development area status as against Merseyside which does?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is taking far too dismal a view of the situation. The Government are aware of the arguments and representations put forward for changes in assisted area status in certain parts of Wales. No decision has yet been taken. A change in the status of one assisted area cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if we did not have steel closures the task forces would not be necessary? In view of the fact that the previous Government brought doubt on the future of the steel industry in Wales, can we have an assurance that no plant will be closed until the situation has been scrutinised in detail?

Mr. Jones: It is immensely to the credit of the present Government that they have instituted the most detailed review possible. At every one of the meetings that has taken place regarding the three steelworks, either on the plant and site at Ebbw Vale or in Cardiff or in London in preliminary meetings, a Welsh Office Minister has been present.

Sir Raymond Gower: In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), while the motive in increasing the regional employment premium is a good one may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that in the Cardiff area and South Glamorgan, for example, the situation regarding the steel industry could be exacerbated by the doubling of the premium in areas immediately outside the county? Does he not agree, therefore, that the exclusion of South Glamorgan from development area status will be an even bigger handicap than it has at present?

Mr. Jones: The needs of the Cardiff area have never been overlooked by the present Government.

Welsh Language Teaching (Independent Schools)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the requirements for the recognition of independent educational establishments teaching Welsh.

Mr. Barry Jones: The same requirements apply for the recognition of independent establishments teaching Welsh as for other independent schools.

Mr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but is he aware that if we are to safeguard the future of the Welsh language and its culture we shall have to spend more money on bilingual education?

Mr. Jones: The Government are very much aware of the need to help the Welsh language, and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend recently gave a £15,000 grant to the Welsh Special Playgroups Association.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my hon. Friend consider that the maintenance of independent schools, with all that this means, is the same thing as or is necessarily helpful to the maintenance of the Welsh language by the necessary procedure of assisting the education of children through the Welsh medium? Is it not the case that the general attitude of the Government towards independent schools should be maintained regardless of linguistic considerations and that we are committed to provide education for children in their native tongue whatever their language?

Mr. Jones: The present Government have a great deal of concern for the future of the Welsh language, and my hon. Friend has summed up the situation very nicely.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the way to ensure effective education through the medium of Welsh is not by a proliferation of independent establishments but through the creation of alternative-choice establishments within the State sector? In view of this, will he undertake to study the possibility of extending facilities for the teaching of Welsh and for teaching through the medium of Welsh at secondary, college and university level?

Mr. Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point of view seriously. The Welsh Education Office has never missed a trick in advancing the situation in the way he has described. The Schools Council, with a vast series of investigations, has been most helpful in this matter.

Water Rates

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities and organisations in Wales on the operation of the Water Act 1973 and its effect in increasing the water rate by the Welsh Water Authority; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Rowlands: We have received a large number of representations. Substantial relief has already been given to domestic consumers to cushion the effect of the increases this year and my right hon. and learned Friend and I shall be meeting the Chairman of the Welsh National Water Development Authority later this week to discuss future charging policy among other matters.

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Welsh Office has had more representations on water rates than on the Kilbrandon proposals and that there is deep feeling throughout the Principality? Will he also confirm that the Water Act 1973 is not working at all satisfactorily, and particularly that the insistence in the Act that water and sewerage services are to be financed entirely from water charges is causing deep concern? Will he and his colleagues when they meet Lord Brecon express forcibly that the whole House recognises that the Water Act is disastrous and that it should be removed from the statute book?

Mr. Rowlands: I have to agree that many of the forecasts we made about the meaning of the Act have come true and that the philosophy behind the Act has created considerable problems for many consumers.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if there are to be any refunds to ratepayers in Wales as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement they will be available to ratepayers before polling day?

Mr. Rowlands: Without the nasty cynicism of the hon. Gentleman, may I say that the aim of the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, plus those introduced in March, was to give millions of pounds more than was given by the Opposition

to ratepayers in Wales, and this will be given as speedily as possible to hard-hit ratepayers. I ask all authorities to do what I gather Anglesey is trying to do—that is, to get refunds out with the maximum possible speed.

Mr. Hooson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain—this puzzles many people in Wales—why Wales, which is so well endowed with water resources, pays so much higher a rate for water than the rest of the United Kingdom? I have no complaint about my constituency, which happens to have been left in the Severn-Trent Authority and therefore pays a much lower rate than its neighbours in Radnorshire, Cardiganshire and even parts of England across the border.

Mr. Rowlands: I have explained several times at length and in detail the reasons why the charges are higher. They are a mixture of historical accident, high loan charges on recent works and the fact that we are trying to serve a wider community. It costs more to produce water for rual areas. But the situation has shown a certain inequity and capriciousness in the system.

Mr. Wigley: When the hon. Gentleman meets Lord Brecon, will he consider putting to him the possibility of wiping out the capital debt which has landed such a millstone around the neck of the Welsh National Water Development Authority in terms of interest payments? Will he also consider averaging the cost of water throughout Wales so that at least the hardest-hit areas are brought down to the average?

Mr. Rowlands: We have been giving urgent consideration to both those points, particularly the second. It is a matter for the water authority itself, which was given powers under the 1973 Act, to make those decisions. Few people except ourselves opposed the Act. I think that Lord Brecon is more than conscious of the impact of loan charges on the cost of water in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we are talking of equalisation of water rates it is more logical to talk of equalisation of these charges throughout the United Kingdom and not merely confine the proposal to the borders of Wales?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are two stages. The first, which could be done rapidly if one wished, would be to equalise charges throughout Wales within the authority of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The second is to consider the broader question of the whole basis of water charges not only within Wales but within the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister confirm that both he and the water authority have extensive powers under the Act? In view of the meeting which is shortly due to take place with the water authority, what proposals has he for equalising the incidence of water charges in Wales?

Mr. Rowlands: As I have said, this is a matter first for the water authority, which has been given statutory responsibility for fixing and arranging charges. The Secretary of State has reserve powers, but what I notice more than anything else is the straitjacket in which we have been put by the previous administration's Water Act.

Devolution

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales from how many district councils, from how many county councils in Wales and from what other bodies he has received comment on the recently published Government discussion paper "Devolution within the United Kingdom".

Mr. John Morris: I have received submissions from three district councils, two county councils and 23 other bodies.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore confirm that he may have received evidence from district councils and county councils supporting the establishment of a legislative assembly in Wales and that these bodies are particularly concerned about the effect of an executiveonly assembly on the functions of local government? With that in mind, can he give the date when a White Paper on this matter may be published.

Mr. Morris: I have of course received a whole variety of opinions about what should be done. I hope that the Government will publish their proposals in the

early autumn. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want me to stress that only a Labour Government will carry out any worthwhile devolution and that a vote for the hon. Gentleman will diminish the chances of a Labour Government being formed. The House and Wales will need to be reminded how he and his colleagues voted on the Queen's Speech, when the Labour Government were fighting for their lives. The hon. Gentleman will shortly be fighting for his political life.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that in the discussion paper itself and in all the discussions in Wales there is complete rejection of a separatist policy, and that although there is an argument for devolution what the people of Wales really want now is to be part of a Socialist Britain with our colleagues in England and Scotland?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Separatism has been rejected both by Kilbrandon and generally in Wales, save for a tiny minority.

Housing (Municipal Purchase)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria are applied by his Department when judging applications by local authorities to purchase housing originally intended for private purchase.

Mr. Rowlands: The criteria applied are that the houses should be available in the right place to meet urgent housing needs and that they should be of an appropriate standard and price.

Mr. Grist: What proposals do the Government have to compensate those who have bought their houses privately only to find the value greatly diminished subsequently by the application of this policy? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the success of his Circular 174, whereby unlimited funds are to be made available for the rest of this year for first-time buyers of new houses, if local councils are to snap up all the new housing that comes on to the market?

Mr. Rowlands: There is no danger that local councils will snap up all the houses on the market. On the contrary, a large number of houses built for sale are still empty. It does no good to the


value of properties if houses remain rotting and empty in times of urgent need.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) is misleading the House when he alleges that valuations have been reduced? First, not a single house in Wales has yet been taken over by a local authority, so that there can be no scientific evidence of lower valuations. Secondly, the Building Societies Association would not accept such an assertion as a scientific basis for valuation in respect of the granting of mortgages. Is it not the case that when 50,000 people in Wales are on council housing waiting lists every possible means should be used to put roofs over the heads of families and their children?

Mr. Rowlands: I agree with the last point. In fact some houses have been purchased, but there is little evidence to suggest that the prices of private houses have been greatly reduced by this action of local authorities.

Dual Carriageways (North Wales)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the construction of dual-carriageway roads in North Wales during the next 12 months.

Mr. Barry Jones: Present plans are for a start of work during the next 12 months on schemes to provide about eight miles of dual-carriageway trunk road.

Sir A. Meyer: May I ask the Minister, who as a back bencher fought hard for the improvement of the road system in North Wales, not to allow himself, because he is now muzzled, to accept a situation in which the present Government do no better in road construction in North Wales than the record of their predecessors, which was not very good at all?

Mr. Jones: I am not muzzled. The Government cannot do worse than the previous Government; they can only do better. Top priority is being given to the A55 coast road. We propose to construct the whole road from Chester to Bangor as a dual carriageway as soon as possible.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this road is of vital importance to the development of Gwynnedd, and particularly of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire, and that people in Gwynnedd will be disappointed to note that only eight miles of the road are proposed at the present time? Will the Government accelerate the programme?

Mr. Jones: We will accelerate the programme as quickly as we can. However, to get a road built one has to start planning many years in advance.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the A5 is no less important than the A55 to Anglesey and the rest of North-West Wales?

Mr. Jones: We know that the A5 is strategic road for Wales. That is why the Llangefni bridge improvement scheme is being carried out on the Isle of Anglesey.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the Minister aware of the problem of an exhibition of a model of the new A5 to the people of Penmaenmawr and their anxiety to see such a model? Will he arrange for this model to be exhibited there since arrangements have been made for an exhibition of the model to a civic society in Colwyn Bay?

Mr. Jones: Yes, most willingly.

Fiscal Measures

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on Wales of the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 22nd July.

Mr. John Morris: The combination of doubling the regional employment premium, lowering the value added tax and the added relief to domestic ratepayers will be of real benefit to the Welsh economy, particularly by improving employment opportunities.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that these three measures have been widely welcomed throughout Wales, and will he confirm that rate relief extends to water and sewerage charges as well as to the general rate? Will he give an assurance that where repayments are due they will be paid as promptly as possible?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on the first point. There has been a great welcome throughout Wales for the Chancellor's measures. On the second point, the relief applies to water and sewerage charges. I hope very much, as my hon. Friend indicated earlier, that local authorities will speedily arrange repayment where due to ratepayers who have already paid the charges.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the Secretary of State confirm that no assistance has been given to the sorely hit commercial ratepayers and small businesses in Wales? Will he confirm that if the Chancellor's figures are correct the total effect of this economic tinkering in terms of jobs for Wales will not be more than between 300 and 600 jobs by the end of next year? Is that not derisory in comparison with the consequences of runaway inflation and the destruction of confidence stimulated by the Government?

Mr. Morris: I fear that the hon. Member must be living in a different world. On rating relief, those with mixed hereditaments obviously benefit, but business premises and businesses generally will benefit from the doubling of REP where that is applicable.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that while there is dissatisfaction about the water authorities, on the general rate Wales has benefited to a greater extent than other parts of Britain and this should be borne in mind in considering the whole rate question? The fact that REP is to be doubled will be a great contribution to ensuring full employment in the years ahead.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The increase in REP will bring substantial benefits to Wales. It is estimated that the total benefit will increase from £13 million a year to £26 million a year. On the question of rating assistance, we must add to the help provided in March the assistance being given now. In the March proposals 31 out of 37 districts in Wales benefited, and 14 of the 37 will benefit from the Chancellor's recent proposals.

Kilbrandon Report

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he

expects to conclude discussions with the interested parties in Wales on the Kilbrandon Report.

Mr. John Morris: I expect these consultations to be completed by about the middle of August.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Labour Members look forward to the Government's proposals in the White Paper which will enable us to make it clear to the people of Wales that since the Conservative Opposition have totally turned their back on any form of elected body for Wales those who wish to see further advance and the creation of an elected assembly will have to support the Labour Party in the forthcoming election, whenever that may be?

Mr. Morris: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Conservatives have offered nothing of substance by way of worthwhile devolution. Only the Labour Government can bring some form of devolution to Wales.

Mr. Grist: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm what he said before the last election: that he is in favour of a legislative assembly for Wales?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is completely misinformed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the view of our party that whereas we agree that only a Labour Government will implement devolution, it is equally true that that will not happen unless there is substantial pressure on the Government from Plaid Cymru and the SNP? Does he agree that the Government would not have had a majority in a number of important votes in the House on vital legislation if they had not had the support of our party?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure whether the hon. Member can recall where the parliamentary pressure originally came from. I remind him that it was the Labour Government which set up the Kilbrandon Commission, a move which was ridiculed by members of Plaid Cymru at the time. When the Labour Government were fighting for their lives in a crucial vote on the debate on the Queen's Speech, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends voted against us. I shall be reminding him and Wales constantly of that in the coming months.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it the Minister's normal practice to comment on the views of a party when he has invited that party to present its views to him next day? Would it not have been better to have waited until he heard what we had to say?

Mr. Morris: I have had the advantage of reading what emerged from the Conservative Party conference at Llandrindod Wells. Unless there is a substantial improvement in the forthcoming consultations, Wales will be deeply disappointed but not surprised at the Conservative Party.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the Secretary of State being less than magnanimous to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas)? Is it not the case that he and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) have supported the Government in almost every Division in this Parliament?

Mr. Morris: I am always grateful for support for the enlightened policies put forward by the Government. The two hon. Members have supported the Government on many occasions, but at the end of the day the Government can be effective only if they have a sufficient number of supporters in the House of Commons and the two hon. Members cannot be counted among that number. The people of Wales will therefore have to decide whether they want devolution, and the only way to get it is through a Labour Government.

Hospitals (Capital Expenditure)

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales on which hospitals in South Glamorgan there has been significant capital expenditure during the past three years; what sums of money have been spent in each case; and in which cases no use is now being made of the hospitals in question.

Mr. Rowlands: Sums in excess of £¼ million have been spent at the University Hospital of Wales, Whitchurch Hospital, the Cardiff Royal Infirmary and Llandough Hospital. I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All these hospitals are fully in use.

Sir R. Gower: In addition to those he has listed, does not the Minister realise that considerable sums were spent a few

years ago at Sully on improved surgery and on nurses' homes and that the hospital was subsequently downgraded? Does he realise that there was considerable expenditure a year or two ago at Glossop Maternity Hospital in Cardiff in order to convert a whole floor to a different purpose, and that it has not been used at all? At a time when the hospital service is pressed for money, is not this a strange way of conducting its affairs?

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Member should know better than to make such silly accusations, especially since I have written to him at length about the Cardiff Maternity Hospital. He knows about the problems of fire and flooding which prevented this hospital from being brought into use.

Following are the details:


University Hospital of Wales
…
£3,250,000


Whitchurch Hospital
…
£444,000


Cardiff Royal Infirmary
…
£430,000


Llandough Hospital
…
£375,000

Mid-Wales

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend the remit of the Mid Wales Development Corporation to cover other towns in the Mid-Wales area.

Mr. John Morris: I am considering very carefully what arrangements are needed to bring about an acceleration of development in rural Wales. The rôle of the Mid Wales Development Corporation is one of the things I am looking at.

Mr. Hooson: Is it not true that the Mid Wales Development Corporation has acquired a good deal of expertise, that its remit could be extended without the need for an Act of Parliament and that this would facilitate a growth towns policy, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was such a critic of the previous Government when they did nothing to implement it? Does he realise that this policy could be implemented by extending the remit to other towns?

Mr. Morris: I pay full tribute to the hon. and learned Member for the longstanding interest he has taken in this matter, an interest which I have shared. The rôle of the development corporation is obviously a very important factor in the consideration of our policy for Mid-Wales. I have been in office for four months. I


would ask for patience. I need a little more time before I can bring forward proposals which I hope will be acceptable, comprehensive and efficient.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not a waste of time to extend the remit of the development corporation if at the same time the Government vote down efforts to improve rural bus services—assisted in doing so by the Liberal Party, who made asses of themselves on Friday by voting for the Government in one Lobby and then rushing across and voting for the motion in the other Lobby?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member has of course for his own purposes misinterpreted Friday's events. No one has shown greater concern for rural transport than my right hon. Friend and myself when I was in the Ministry of Transport. We want further time to consider the implications of all the proposals that have been canvassed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In his reconsideration of the Mid-Wales growth town policy, will the Secretary of State re-examine the selection of growth towns by the Welsh Council? In its studies will the council look again particularly at the position of older towns such as Blaenau Ffestiniog? Is there not a need for machinery to develop the area on a broad basis, with not only industrial development but housing need borne in mind?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my great concern for Blaenau Ffestiniog from the moment I took office and of the concern of my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman is right. One should take a broad view of all the areas in rural Wales, Mid-Wales and North Wales that need help. I shall take all these factors into consideration before bringing forward my proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Offices (Dispersal)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will now make a statement on dispersal of civil servants to Scotland.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he

expects to announce the Government's decision on the Hardman proposals for the dispersal of civil servants.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about the dispersal of civil servants from London to Teesside.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to announce the decision of the Government on the Hardman proposals for the dispersal of civil servants.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will make a statement to the House tomorrow on the dispersal of civil servants from London.

Mr. Taylor: I am glad to note that there will be an announcement on this important matter. Can the Minister give assurances to remove some of the uncertainties and unreasonable fears that London's civil servants have about dispersing to Scotland or Wales? Will he arrange for those civil servants who have been dispersed there to have full and comprehensive meetings with those who might be dispersed in the future?

Mr. Sheldon: There will certainly be a need for full and comprehensive meetings after the announcement to be made tomorrow.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that people on Teesside will be pleased to hear that in just half the time it took the Conservative Government the Labour Government have taken decisions on the Hardman Committee's report which will be announced tomorrow? Is he aware that on Teesside we have an over-dependence on chemicals and steel and that there is a desperate need for an extension of the range of employment into white collar jobs not affected by the regular ups and downs of the economy? Will he take this into account in making his decisions about the dispersal of civil servants.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The needs of Teesside are being taken fully into account.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Mr. Redmond: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the terms of reference and powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Government are always ready to consider any recommendations on these matters which the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner may wish to make.

Mr. Redmond: I thank the Minister for that interesting reply. Is he aware that under paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act the Ombudsman is specifically debarred from examining personnel matters, which include superannuation? An important point that I put to the Ombudsman on behalf of a constituent suffering from maladministration due to printing delays had to be turned down by the Ombudsman, who reminded me that the Select Committee had recommended the Minister to lay an order giving the Parliamentary Commissioner powers from which he is debarred by the sub-paragraph to which I have referred.

Mr. Sheldon: The matter is being considered.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Minister examine the position whereby the Ombudsman cannot consider redundancies among civil servants at local government level to see whether they are right? There have been such redundancies in Derbyshire but the Ombudsman was not allowed to look into them.

Mr. Sheldon: The purpose of the Parliamentary Commissioner is to investigate maladministration by Government Departments. Three local government commissioners for England and Wales have been named so far.

Mr. Rost: When will the Parliamentary Commissioner be able to investigate complaints against the nationalised industries? Many of the complaints I receive concern bad service by nationalised industries or nationalised industry pensions. Will not this matter be increasingly important if the Labour Party plans to make us all nationalised?

Mr. Sheldon: Complaints about industry are not confined to nationalised industries. There are problems about all industries. If there is to be an extension of the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Select Committee might consider these matters.

Security Guards

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many officers supplied by security companies are at present engaged in guarding Government Departments; what is the weekly charge for each of these persons; and what is the weekly wage of a security guard in the direct employ of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: No central record is kept of contracts with security firms and information about the staff numbers and charges could not be obtained without disproportionate cost to public funds.
The basic pay of directly-employed security guards is £24·07 to £25·25 per week. In addition they receive payments averaging £8·70 per week for shift work and Sunday duty and a cost-of-living supplement of £2·40 per week.

Mr. Mikardo: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not been able to do all his homework. Is he aware that other people have done homework on the question and know that the number of security guards hired from companies is large and is increasing rapidly, and that the average charge to the Government for them is between two and three times the charge of a security guard employed directly by the Government? Is not this a gross example of the "lump" system to which our party is opposed? If the Government cannot recruit enough guards of their own at present wage rates, why do they not offer wage rates at which they could recruit them and save a great deal of money?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the important points here, which is the rates of pay. There is an obvious need to improve the recruitment of guards. Guards for individual Ministries are a matter for the individual departmental Minister. I am deeply concerned about the matter, and consultations are taking place on how recruitment can he improved.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not less than satisfactory that no central record is kept? As a matter of policy, when it comes to guarding both Government installations and oil installations, which concern many of us, may we have an assurance—not necessarily today—that preference will be given to guarding by the police and not by hired security firms?

Mr. Sheldon: The Civil Service Department is responsible for giving general advice on departmental expenditure on the services of private security firms, but the negotiation of individual contracts is a matter for each Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Working Hours

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in the study of the working hours of the House of Commons.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): This Parliament has not so far put in hand a study of the working hours of the House of Commons. Any proposed change in working hours would be a matter for decision by the House and would normally be preceded by an inquiry by a Select Committee.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been and is some pressure to give the House office hours, which would be extremely detrimental to the working of the House, since the main weapon of any effective Opposition is unpredictability of time and hours, and that any set hour for closing the shop would not benefit the provincial Members from Scotland or from anywhere else outside London? Will my right hon. Friend take these factors into account if and when the proposition arises?

Mr. Short: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, but the time is perhaps coming when we can look once more at our working hours.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a patent absurdity in starting the proceedings at 2.30 in the afternoon and carrying on until half way through the night when full-time Members of Parliament could

be working much more sensible hours without the detriment to family life that our unnecessary hours create?

Mr. Short: That illustrates the difficulty. Many of our proceedings start in the morning. Hundreds of Members are working almost every morning. In addition Ministers are working in their Departments in the morning. It is a complex matter, but the time is coming, perhaps later this year, when we can review it once more.

Mr. Marten: Would it not be a good thing to wait a short while before coming to any decision so that the right hon. Gentleman can come over to these benches in opposition? He will then realise why we want to work the hours that we do now.

Mr. Short: I think it will be a long time before that happens.

Mr. Skinner: Although there is the argument that the fact that the House works in various Committees during the course of the morning might prevent the possibility of working normal office hours, the fact remains that the Committees work in the afternoon too when the House is sitting. For full-time Members of Parliament one of the biggest problems they have to overcome to achieve such status is to get proper office hours. In that way we would prevent some hon. Members, and particularly Opposition Members, from working in other capacities, sometimes several times over, and earning income apart from their salaries as Members.

Mr. Short: I leave aside my hon. Friend's latter point. We must face the fact that there is an enormous and increasing volume of work to be done by Parliament. The position will be complicated greatly over the next few years by membership of the EEC. I am greatly perturbed at the impact that membership is having and will have on the operation of the House. Fundamental questions are raised about how we carry out our business. I repeat for the third time that towards the end of this year we must carry out a radical look at how we carry out our business.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that when I come here on most mornings at about


half-past nine there is nobody to bar my way and I can get into the House and get on with my work as a Member of Parliament? If he wants to do something constructive to improve the working of the House, he might at least have the common sense to see that the strike which affects the issue of parliamentary papers is ended, in accordance with the social compact, whatever that is, so as to make it possible for Parliament to work.

Mr. Short: I shall not say anything about common sense in the context of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make some announcements later. I hope that they will help the House to do its work more effectively.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there might be some improvement in the situation in this House, in view of the tremendous overloading of the system as a result of the additional work which is being made through our membership of the Common Market and other matters, if a Scottish Parliament were to be set up so that Scottish Members of Parliament could get down to a real job in Edinburgh?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is at present exercising us a great deal. There will be an opportunity later today to debate that subject.

Visitors

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for constituents visiting the House of Commons.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): Yes, in general; but the Committee will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend considers this matter, will he take into account that the system of permits which operates in the months of June and July for constituents of Members of Parliament wanting to visit the Houses of Parliament is being much abused by the booking up, during the course of those months, of permits by travel agencies through Members of Parliament on the

Opposition benches? Further, will he take into account that the London Travel Association—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Name them"] The Serjeant at Arms has the names but he refuses to reveal them. Will my right hon. Friend take into account that the London Travel Association has its own courier who uses this method—it has been adopted in recent months—to book up all the available places, thereby preventing hon. Members from taking their constituents round the line of route?

Mr. Bottomley: Every party has to be sponsored by a Member, and a Member must accept all that goes with that. A Member must ensure that those who go round are constituents or people who have a right to do so as a result of being sponsored by their Member.

Mr. Cormack: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to suggest that what his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says is correct? If he has not, will he arrange for the matter to be clarified?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes.

Secretaries' Council

Mr. David Steel: asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) if he is now able to extend official recognition to the Secretaries' Council.

Mr. Bottomley: There are difficulties over formal recognition at this time, but the Services Committee and the authorities of the House are always ready to consider representations on any matters within their responsibility.

Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both the methods of employment and the conditions of work of Members' secretaries throughout the building should be examined by his Committee? Has he received written evidence from the Secretaries' Council? If so, does his Committee intend to follow that up by inviting the council to give oral evidence to the Committee?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the secretaries are the responsibility of individual Members. I agree that there is a need to consider the matter, and at some time I hope that it can be done.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether not only the Secretaries' Council but other recognised trade union organisations are consulted by the Services Committee? Will he tell the House whether the employees' organisations in the House were consulted before his Committee decided to close the entrance from the Underground station?

Mr. Bottomley: It is necessary to consult everybody who if affected by decisions of the Services Committee. No decision has been taken to close the entrance to the tunnel to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is virtually a repetition of the answers that I have been hearing in this House, on and off, for more than 25 years—namely, recognition that there is a problem but that there are difficulties at present? When will the "present time" for this purpose come to an end? Will it take less than another 25 years?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will recognise that until the secretaries are able to get into an organisation from which they will speak with one voice the answer will be the same over the next 25 years.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we get better answers from him than from the Government Front Bench? Will he answer Questions more often and his Front Bench less often?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Industry Act Assistance (Northern Region)

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Industry on how many occasions since 1st March his Department assisted firms in the Northern Region under Section 7 of the Industry Act.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): Between 1st March 1974 and 30th June 1974, 59 offers of assistance totalling £29,000 in loans and £1,950,000 in grants have been made to firms in the Northern Region under Section 7 of the Industry Act.

These offers involve about 4,000 additional jobs in projects estimated to cost in total £27 million.

Mr. Radice: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not show that the Government are using their powers under the Industry Act in a progressive manner? Is my hon. Friend aware that the doubling of the regional employment premium is widely welcomed in the development areas?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Radice: Does he accept that it is recognised as a further indication of the Government's concern with regional policy?

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is correct. The decision of the Government to double the regional employment premium has been welcomed in the regions. My hon. Friend will also know that we are deeply concerned to improve the employment position in the regions. We want to amend the Industry Act at the earliest possible moment to improve the scope for regional development.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Minister agree that more money will be available for that purpose when a regional development fund is set up within the EEC? Will he assure the House that his right hon. Friend recognises that a regional development fund is an essential part of the Community?

Mr. Heffer: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is not aware that no decision has been made by the EEC regarding the regional development fund. In any case, there is no guarantee that anything that we might get from such a fund would be in addition to what we are already doing. No decision has yet been taken on this matter. That is quite clear from an EEC instrument. The whole matter is under discussion.

Mr. Urwin: The Northern Region will accept with gratitude the information that has been given by my hon. Friend. What were the comparative figures in a similar accounting period during the time of his predecessor? Is he completely satisfied with the rate of progress that has been made since 28th February?

Mr. Heffer: Without notice I could not give the exact comparative figures,


but I am not and never will be satisfied until we reduce unemployment in the regions to a very low level.

Mr. Heseltine: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that, as the figures he has given are all firm offers, every one of the applications involved must have been in before the last General Election within the framework created by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Heffer: No one is suggesting that we are not continuing with the Industry Act. We have made it clear that we are doing so. But we want to improve upon it and also improve the general situation even more than we are able to do now.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the doubling of regional employment premium may have been welcomed in parts of the North, it has been deeply deplored in parts of the North-West, such as my constituency of Lancaster, where unemployment has risen from 3 per cent. last month to 3·6 per cent. this month? Is he further aware that my constituents are even more concerned by his letter to me of 22nd July, in which he outlined clearly a distinct change of policy with regard to the granting of industrial development certificates? From now on they are to be biased virtually wholly in favour of development and special development areas, which makes it much more difficult for intermediate areas such as mine.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Lady is not correct in suggesting that the IDC policy is not also directed towards helping intermediate areas. She ought to understand the position. She should read my letter. The IDC policy has been tightened up, but it is clear that there is need to assist other areas as well as development and special development areas. [Interruption.] I understand the hon. Lady's out-burst, but I assure her that the doubling of the REP has been fully supported, not only by the TUC but by industry itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were unable to reach the

next Question—No. 18—which thus precludes either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Industry from making a statement to the House about the important decisions which, apparently, were taken about Concorde in the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of France.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES AND ASSISTANCE FOR OPPOSITION PARTIES.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
As the House knows, the Top Salaries Review Body, under Lord Boyle's chairmanship, has been reviewing Members' allowances. Its terms of reference were:
To review the current rates of allowances payable to Members of the House of Commons and to recommend the levels to which they should be increased
The Review Body has now reported to the Prime Minister and its report is being published today as a Command Paper. Copies are available in the Vote Office. I am most grateful to Lord Boyle and to the other members of the Review Body for having completed the review so quickly.
The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations, which are as follows: The allowance payable for journeys by car in the performance of Members' parliamentary duties should be increased from 5p to 7·7p a mile. London supplement paid to Ministers and office holders and to Members who represent London constituencies should go up from £175 to £228 a year. The limit within which a Member may claim the additional cost of living away from home when engaged on parliamentary duties should be raised from £750 to £1,050 a year.
The Review Body recommends that the annual limit within which Members may claim the cost of secretarial assistance should be increased from £1,000 to £1,750. This new rate allows for increases in secretaries' pay and also takes into account


that Members need more secretarial assistance than previously. Payment for research assistance may also be met within the limit of this allowance, up to a new maximum of £550.
The report also recommends that those Members who represent constituencies in the Greater London area but who, under the present rules, do not qualify for London supplement because their constituencies are outside the inner London area might in future be allowed London supplement as an alternative to the additional costs allowance.
The Government also intend to introduce a minor change in the rules governing the issue of railway warrants. This will benefit Members who represent distant constituencies and use the motor-rail service. It would allow these Members to reclaim the actual cost of such a journey within the limits of the motor mileage allowance that would have been payable if the journey had been made by car.
A motion giving effect to these changes where necessary will be tabled this evening, and it is proposed that the operative date for the changes should be 1st August 1974.
I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that none of these increases is an increase in pay. They recognise that allowances, which help to meet expenses arising from parliamentary duties, have not kept pace with the cost of living.
I know that many back-bench Members feel they could make a greater contribution to the work of Parliament if the research services available to them could be strengthened. I propose, therefore, to set up a Select Committee after the Summer Recess to examine the present support facilities available to back-bench Members carrying out their duties in this House, in particular research assistance on matters before Parliament, and to make recommendations for such improvements as they consider necessary. This Select Committee will have a most important task before it on behalf of back-bench Members.
The Government believe that further measures are needed to strengthen out parliamentary democracy. The health of a democracy necessarily reflects the stand-

ing and independence of its political parties. For this reason, many Western democratic countries think it best that their political parties should have part of their finance provided from public funds. We take the view that whether or not some form of financial assistance for the parties' work outside Parliament is desirable in this country needs thorough study by an independent committee. I propose to establish such a committee after the recess. I will, of course, discuss its terms of reference with all the parties opposite. I would envisage an independent chairman and representation from the parties and others.
A more immediate need is to provide additional support for the Opposition parties in Parliament—support which they certainly require if they are to play their full part here. The then Opposition and, I believe, the whole House benefited greatly from the Rowntree scheme, but more permanent arrangements are now necessary. Following our commitment in the Queen's Speech, I have had very helpful discussions with the parties opposite. I now plan to bring firm proposals before the House in the autumn.
The main areas of support which we believe are needed are in the staffing of the Opposition Leader's and Chief Whip's offices, and in research assistance for shadow Front Bench spokesmen. The smaller parties also need staff support, but, naturally, on a smaller scale. We take the view that the parties should decide their own staffing arrangements, and I shall propose, therefore, that they be allocated funds for this purpose, borne upon the House Vote. These would be calculated by a formula based on the number of seats and votes won, the details of which I should like to discuss further with the parties opposite after the recess.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that all the measures which I have announced this afternoon will do much to strengthen the effectiveness of Parliament. It is for that reason above all that I commend them to the House.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we join him in thanking Lord Boyle for his speedy report? We confirm the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis that these allowances are for


expenses incurred by Members and are nothing to do with their salaries. I believe that particularly in time of inflation, such as we are now experiencing, some rather more frequent review would meet the needs of the House and perhaps be more explainable to the country than the long period between reviews which has been the custom in recent times. I know that not all of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with me on that matter, but I still believe that it would be generally acceptable to the House.
Regarding the point that Lord Boyle has suggested about the special arrangements which are now to be made for London Members who are outside the Inner London Education Authority area, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has done the right thing and I am certain that many London Members will be deeply grateful to him and to Lord Boyle for what has been put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the far more difficult and far more controversial steps about assistance for the parties' work outside Parliament. I should make it clear that we believe it is right that the matter should go to a committee, and we would support that. But this is a matter which the House will have to decide for itself, and the House will have to take into account the very serious implications that this involves, as to whether taxpayers' money should be used for a purpose of this nature. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right in any way for us to comment, certainly until we have the committee's report, or the inquiry's report, available to us.
Concerning additional cash for Opposition parties, I suppose that one of the benefits of the change in Government in recent years is that it has brought to the notice of Governments the very great difficulties from which Oppositions suffer, particularly Shadow Ministers. Therefore, I think that the whole House recognizes —

Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman will get used to it.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but others may have to get used to it before long.
But certainly, as far as this proposal goes, I believe that Front Bench spokesmen, with the additional correspondence

and additional research work that is now required of them—which is far greater than it was even a few years ago—do need the sort of assistance that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Therefore, the Opposition are grateful for this consideration and will wish to co-operate in the talks that take place after the Summer Recess.

Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Leader of the House to confirm one point—that the question of aid to Opposition parties when they are in the House is not a new principle, because under both the present Government and the previous Government aid in the form of salaries and staffing to the official Opposition has been running at a rate of about £30,000 a year? Before anyone gets too excited about this principle, let us remember that it has been established in the House for some time.
Second, on the question of Members' salaries, does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to refer this question, which he rightly says has nothing to do with the present statement, to the Boyle Committee at some time in the future? Otherwise, Members' salaries would appear to be in the unique position of being permanently frozen.

Mr. Short: Lord Boyle suggested that salaries should be reviewed once every Parliament roughly. The last review was four years ago in January, so the end of the year would be the appropriate time for a review.

Mr. Prescott: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what he has announced in regard to secretarial facilities is again emphasising the fact that it is less than the rate for the job, and it means part-time secretarial work for part-time Members? Does he agree that this means that a Member of Parliament must seek further employment outside the House in order to provide such things as a typewriter and a pension for his secretary, and does he agree that this also means that political advisers, who get more for their secretaries and their facilities than a Member of Parliament, contribute more than we do to the political system?

Mr. Short: When I referred this matter to Lord Boyle I told the House that this would be a very quick interim report. My hon. Friend will remember that. I said


that after the recess I hoped to ask Lord Boyle to review the whole basis of the allowances.

Sir David Renton: Is the Leader of the House aware that in recent weeks, even if we had had all the secretarial and research assistance that we could possibly have desired, we should nevertheless still have been gravely handicapped by the lack of adequate printing of parliamentary papers? As Question No. 45 was not reached, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what future arrangements he is able to make in order to overcome this very serious problem?

Mr. Short: That matter is quite unrelated to my statement, but if there should be another occasion, unfortunately when this occurs the Government, as they have done in the recent crisis, will make all the necessary parliamentary papers available.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members in all parts of the House may sleep easier in their beds this evening, and that he is to be congratulated —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say that that was not a very tactful remark, so far as the Chair is concerned, in view of the business tonight.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all try to spread a little light in our way, and that he is to be congratulated in coming forward with this interim statement and the statement regarding assistance to the House in the discharge of its functions? Is he aware, however, that a little retrospection in the announcement of the operative date would have been welcome to those Members who have lived on promises to their secretaries in recent weeks? Will he kindly say whether any portion of the secretarial allowance may be used in purchasing equipment and stationery to assist in secretarial work?

Mr. Short: There is no problem about the purchase of stationery. There may be a problem over the purchase of equipment, and I will look into that matter for my hon. Friend. I hope that there is no breach of promise to any of our secretaries. I thought that my hon. Friend was a bit tactless to talk of us sleeping

peacefully and safely in our beds, on this night of all nights, so far as you, Mr. Speaker, are concerned.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Surely the Lord President has considerable support for his view that an independent inquiry into the financing of political parties should be undertaken. Does he agree that it is quite intolerable that one large political party should be financed by the trade unions and the other party by big business, while there are other political parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fraser."]—which have to raise their funds the hard way? Second, will the Lord President accept that there is also considerable support for his view that support from the Government should be given to Opposition parties to enable them to carry out their functions? Is he able to say whether the views that he has expressed on this subject today will have the full and committed support of the main Opposition party in the event of a change from one Front Bench to the other after the General Election?

Mr. Short: I cannot speak for the Opposition parties on this matter. They must speak for themselves. On the other point, however, this is the practice in a great many Western countries and in New Zealand now, and there is a case for looking at it. There is no real comparison between the money which the Labour Party gets from the trade unions, where any trade unionist can contract out and a subscription from a firm to the Conservative Party, where the customer cannot contract out.

Mr. Faulds: May I stress that, generous as the secretarial allowance increase may appear to be, not only does the allowance mean that we shall still have to continue sharing secretaries, which may be an inconvenience for us, but it means for the girls concerned that there is two girls' work for one girl's pay? Many of us find the continuation of this situation quite unacceptable.

Mr. Short: This is a matter of getting the right balance. Some Members have not sufficient work to keep a secretary fully occupied, and some share. But in other cases a Member may have sufficient work to keep a secretary fully occupied.

Mr. Faulds: That is the point I am making.

Mr. Short: The increase is based upon the increase in the salaries of typists in the Civil Service.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Lord President aware that we welcome very warmly his statement as far as it goes. However, will he clarify the situation for the minority parties which are geographically definable and which would be limited, however many seats they can win within their own orbit, if it is a linear scale that he takes between minimum and maximum?

Mr. Short: I have discussed this with the hon. Gentleman. There must be a limit. Almost any formular based on votes or the number of seats produces too much for the large parties and too little for the small parties. There has to be a ceiling and a floor. It is a matter for discussion in the autumn as to where we fix the point.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much more honest if we were to be paid an adequate salary and allowed to decide how much we chose to spend on secretarial assistance and other things? Does he not further agree that the impression will be created outside that this is a backhanded way of giving increases to Members? Will he further explain to the House a remark in the latter part of his statement with regard to the provision of financial facilities for minority parties in the House? I believe he referred to this being related both to the number of Members of Parliament and to the size of their vote in the House. Does he appreciate that the one can contradict, and has contradicted, the other—in the February 1974 General Election—and probably will do so in the autumn? That point ought to be clarified.

Mr. Short: I will bear that point in mind. I have done a fair amount of work on this. If we take either votes or seats alone it does not produce the right answer. If a formula can be devised to combine the two it is much nearer to the right answer. I must disagree completely with my hon. Friend on his first point. I have talked to many Members on both

sides. It is plain that this is not a backdoor method of increasing salaries. I know that Members are having difficulties in carrying out their duties efficiently. These modest increases, which barely keep pace with inflation, are long overdue.

Mr. Thorpe: May I revert to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the first Boyle Report was under consideration there was agreement in advance that, whatever might be the electoral fortunes in this House, the broad principles would be accepted on all sides or at any rate through the usual channels? Taking the present case, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) went through a list of things with which he found favour but carefully refrained from passing any judgment on aid to Opposition parties other than the official Opposition. Are we to take it that that was a mere slip and that the official Opposition are in agreement in principle on this matter, or is this a matter in respect of which the Leader of the House has still to negotiate with the Opposition?

Mr. Short: I cannot speak for the Opposition but I will study very carefully what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said and what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has said.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while these increases in allowances are welcome, we are still only chipping away at the basic problem confronting the modern, active, diligent MP, a description which applies to the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House? Why do we not have a system whereby secretaries are paid directly by the House and not by Members? Why do we not have a system whereby each Member has the research assistance he or she requires? Is he aware that the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) are misplaced, because if taxpayers' money is not used to sustain, aid and advise the representatives of the taxpayer, private money will be used to do so, which carries with it all kinds of difficulties and implications?

Mr. Short: The point raised in the latter part of my hon. Friend's observations is the very reason why I propose to set up a Select Committee to look into this issue. As for the suggestions in the earlier part of his remarks, this is the kind of radical look which I hope Lord Boyle will take when we submit to him the whole basis of our allowances in the autumn.

Mr. Crouch: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is always a very difficult matter when Members of Parliament are examining in this House what they should be paid. Is the Leader of the House aware that outside the House we shall not be regarded with very great admiration, bearing in mind our incompetence and fear of tackling this question of Members' pay, at a time when inflation is running at 20 per cent? While I know that there is no one in this House who is saying that we should put in a pay claim, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it exhibits an incompetence and a failure to be aware of the realities we face as a nation? While we thank the right hon. Gentleman for the car allowance, may I ask him whether he is aware that it is derisory compared with what is paid in local government, the health service or our universities? Does he realise that it is comparisons of this sort that people outside will draw and conclude that the House is not facing reality?

Mr. Short: The car allowance is equated with the Civil Service car allowance.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: While I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said in his comprehensive statement, may I ask him whether he is aware that in The Times appointments page this morning equivalent secretarial payments are being offered at the rate of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year? Is he further aware that our secretaries still do not have an adequate salary, still work in appalling conditions and still have no security and no pension? For how much longer is he prepared to continue with secretarial employment in the House of Commons on the basis of refined labour-only subcontracting?

Mr. Short: There is a problem about secretarial assistance. This is the kind of question which we might ask Lord Boyle to look into. We are asking him

to look into the whole basis of our pay and allowances in the autumn.

Mr. McCrindle: Following upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept that there are many of us who would wish to keep the payment of our secretaries within our control? Could a future review consider the possibility of these girls being considered to be employees for tax and national insurance purposes?

Mr. Short: This is certainly a point of view. Many people would support it. There are considerable difficulties about it. It can be looked at.

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend said that he proposes to ask Lord Boyle to look into the whole question of pay and allowances after the General Election. Is he aware that on the last occasion Lord Boyle also looked at the important question of pensions? May I assume that he will do so again and that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of my right hon. Friend that he did not mention this point?

Mr. Short: Perhaps by a slip of the tongue I did not say that the relationship between pay and allowances was to be examined in the autumn. That was what I was meaning. I did not mention pensions because this is a matter for legislation. I have some minor changes to propose in the autumn in our pension scheme, which is not all that good. This must await the Government's national pension White Paper.

Captain Orr: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he has in mind about the shape of the Select Committee when it ultimately sits? Is it to be composed purely of back benchers, and, if so, does he envisage the minority parties being represented on it?

Mr. Short: I have nothing in mind at this point except a Select Committee. I would be happy to discuss this.

Mr. George Lawson: While I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend and agree that it can only assist in building up the standing and prestige of Parliament, may I ask him to throw his considerable weight against


any move which seeks to retard the opposite tendency now taking place as seen in the proposed setting up of separate elected assemblies in Scotland and perhaps elsewhere, which can only weaken Parliament, and the encouragement of the principle of referenda, which is detrimental to the interests of Parliament?

Mr. Short: I never cease to be astounded at the ingenuity of my hon. Friend. I cannot find any connection between his remarks and my statement.

Mr. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentle man agree that there is a distinction in this House drawn between help given equally to all Members and help which is given to leaders of parties and their colleagues? While the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are a modest step, do they not represent the chipping away at a rather important distinction? As for this question of a party's activity outside the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would accept that many of us would feel worried if we followed the example of Germany and Italy, countries with quite different political structures, and formed a compact among the political parties to dip our fingers into taxpayers' money?

Mr. Short: As I pointed out, we all have to subscribe towards the Conservative Party in many of the goods that we buy. We have no choice. We cannot contract out, when we buy certain commodities, of the element in the price which goes to the Conservative Party. That factor has to be taken into account. As for the point about the aid to Opposition parties, this is not chipping away at the problem; it is a major step forward.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that of the four allowances he has dealt with today, the one which is closest to being an element of salary is the London allowance? Is he aware that it will be noted with some pleasure outside that we have given ourselves a figure far short of what the Pay Board's report would have justified? Does he also agree that he has announced today research help for Opposition parties and for every section of the House except Government back benchers? Does he agree that parlia-

mentary democracy rests almost exclusively in this country in the trust of Government back benchers? Can he give us some reason to understand that a Select Committee on research assistance will be summoned in the autumn that will look at the possibility of a great expansion of the research possibilities of the Library?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is quite correct on the first point. What Lord Boyle proposed was lower than the Pay Board's proposal for London weighting. There are two reasons for that. First, Lord Boyle did not know about the Pay Board's report because he made his decision before it was published; secondly, the criteria in the case of Members of Parliament are rather different.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I proposed that we should set up the Select Committee to look into the question my hon. Friend has raised, because I agree with my hon. Friend that all Members need a great deal more research support than they are getting.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have tried to call every Member who rose immediately after the statement was made. If hon. Members keep joining in, it makes it more difficult for me.

Mr. Prior: In reply to what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, I should like, on behalf of my party, to make it clear that we accept in principle the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the House for additional financial help to be given to Opposition parties in the House and connected with the House. In fact, it already goes on in various forms. However, the major issue of help for Opposition parties in the country as a whole is a completely separate matter on which the House is not called upon at this stage to make a decision. It is right that a committee should consider the matter, and the House must then make up its mind.

Mr. Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. I make it clear that the Government have no view on this matter, but they feel that it should be looked at by an independent committee.

OFF-PEAK ELECTRICITY CHARGES

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on off-peak electricity charges.
I informed the House on 20th June that I had asked the Chairman of the Electricity Council to examine what adjustment could be made to give relief to the domestic consumer of electricity on the off-peak rates. I also indicated that my aim would be to restore the previous differential between off-peak electricity and electricity at the standard rate.
There are basically four off-peak and night-rate tariffs still being used, although not all of them have been offered to new consumers for some years. The actual rates, both off-peak and standard, differ between each electricity area board reflecting differing local circumstances. The area boards in England and Wales will at my request adjust each of these off-peak rates so that they once more represent the same percentage of the new standard domestic rate as they did in relation to the previous standard domestic rate in March 1974. This will restore all the domestic off-peak percentage relationships to the same position they held before the introduction of the fuel cost adjustment clauses. The overall national average percentage increase on the off-peak rates is now expected to be approximately 34 per cent. as compared with the 70 per cent. expected earlier.
A substantial proportion of the consumers on non-domestic tariffs are, however, also residential consumers, such as small shopkeepers and those living in old people's homes and hostels. I am advised by the Electricity Council that it is administratively impracticable to segregate from the tariffs concerned consumers in premises used wholly or mainly for residential purposes. I have therefore decided, in order to avoid any hardship to the consumers concerned, that similar adjustments should be made to all quarterly off-peak tariffs.
These adjustments will take effect in respect of consumption starting from the first meter-reading on or after 1st August. This means that all these off-peak consumers will receive a bill for one summer

quarter at the full rate. I regret that it is not practicable to make this adjustment retrospective on consumption which has started to be incurred at the existing higher rates during May to July. To attempt to do so would impose an excessive administrative burden on the industry and prejudice our aim of giving the earliest possible relief for the autumn when heating requirements increase.
These adjustments, the full details of which will be published as soon as possible by the area boards, will on present fuel costs result in a loss of revenue for the industry of about £30 million this year and about £40 million in a full year. The industry will have to be compensated by the Government. This will be a substantial additional burden on the Exchequer and is not a concession which can continue indefinitely. In the changed world energy scene, we have to accept that electricity, like other forms of energy, is going to cost considerably more than it did in the past.
The Government are, however, conscious that fuel costs bear heavily on the poorer sections of the community. We shall, therefore, as I explained to the House on 20th June, be reviewing the policy for energy prices in the light of their impact on household expenditure. In the meantime, the adjustments I have announced today will give substantial relief to off-peak consumers.
I believe we have dealt with the problem fairly and responsibly and I trust the House will accept that we have met the genuine concern which was expressed on off-peak charges.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for having met in substance the case presented on both sides of the House in the debate on the Opposition motion on 20th June.
Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit about the future relationship of off-peak charges to the standard charges? Can he indicate how much longer off-peak consumers can expect their off-peak charges to bear a relationship to the standard charges; or will they have to move to a higher percentage figure?

Mr. Varley: I do not envisage any early adjustment. As I told the House


on 20th June, we are reviewing the impact of energy prices on household expenditure. That is part of a wider review. I am not sure that the present fuel subsidies work in the redistributive way in which some of my hon. Friends would like them to work. I cannot give a precise date, but I do not see any early changes.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As leader of the rebellious Members who revolted, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether be is aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to me and my hon. Friends who felt as I did? Is he also aware that it will show the country at large, and, in particular, Her Majesty's Opposition, that if the Labour Government make a mistake they at least have the honesty to admit it and to attempt to right the wrong which would otherwise have been done?

Mr. Varley: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend accepts that we have dealt with this matter fairly and responsibly.

Mr. Beith: Will the Secretary of State accept thanks, which I am sure come from both sides of the House, for deferring, in a generous friendly manner, to the realities of the minority Government situation? Can he be clearer about the nature of the subsidy? Does he agree that it would be possible, without subsidy, to retain the percentage differential between off-peak and normal prices however much electricity prices in general rose? Is there any reason why the difference between the two levels should not be retained indefinitely without subsidy?
In the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that consumers who get their electricity from Scottish electricity boards will not face increases of the kind originally projected?

Mr. Varley: Comparable arrangements are being made for Scotland, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take an opportunity to make a statement later today.
There are difficulties in the relationship between the standard unit and the off-peak unit. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman supposes. There is the additional factor that many old people who

are poor cannot afford off-peak electricity but still have to rely on electricity. No help is given to them in my statement, and I want to consider them urgently.

Mr. Skeet: Will the right hon. Gentleman be frank about the deficit of the industry, which is running at £500 million a year, bearing in mind the £176 million which he has given to the industry in the past week? Will he maintain the ratio between peak pricing and standard rate, or will he raise all the charges in the near future? It is not sufficient to say on this occasion that he is not prepared to say. He should be frank and tell us what the prospective charges are likely to be to the consumer.

Mr. Varley: It is not possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. As a result of this additional concession, the expected deficit of the electricity supply industry will be well over £200 million. The House will certainly have to consider this at some stage.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from one of the rebels who did not realise that he had a leader in the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck)? When my right hon. Friend is considering the long-term relationship between off-peak and standard prices, will he bear in mind the problems of rural areas which have no alternative to electricity for heating? This applies particularly in my constituency, large parts of which are denied access to gas.

Mr. Varley: I am aware of that problem and it will form part of our review.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the Member who secured an Adjournment debate which perhaps roused the rebels to their cause, I welcome the Minister's announcement. He spoke in terms of the effect of electricity charges on household expenditure. Will he also bear in mind the needs of old people's homes, some of which are semi-commercial premises?

Mr. Varley: Residential old people's homes are covered by my statement. Arrangements are being made for those establishments, and when the hon. Gentleman has had time to consider my statement he will realise that. I want to consider old people in the light of the


review I announced on 20th June. I can only repeat that many old people cannot afford off-peak electricity and cannot even afford the installation charges for night-storage heaters. Something should be done for them.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is little or no substance in the claims made by the Chairman of the CEGB that the Government's decision to use steam generating reactors represents an increase in loan charges of £5,000 million or £6,000 million? Will be confirm that the decision will not add to the cost of generation or to the tariffs as he has suggested? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that there is no substance in the claim made by the member of the CEGB who recently resigned because he believed that the nuclear decision was wrong and

would have a bad effect on tariff charges?

Mr. Varley: The question of the steam generating heavy water reactor does not come into this statement. I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in getting it in. On the question whether I accept some statements made by the CEGB and Mr. Clark, I do not accept the statements made by the CEGB, and certainly not those made by Mr. Clark.

Mr. Bray: In view of the continued non-availability of the OFFICIAL REPORT, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate to hon. Members who have written to him on the subject the detailed statement which he has made today?

Mr. Varley: I will look into the possibility, but I cannot make a specific promise. There may be insuperable administrative difficulties.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: There are two motions on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister. The practice is to take the first one formally and to debate the second one.

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Wednesday at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Five o'clock adjourn the House without putting any Question:
Provided that, if the Sitting of the House tomorrow shall have continued beyond Eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses, but as soon as he shall have so reported, he shall forthwith adjourn the House without putting any Question. —[Mr. Edward Short.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday do adjourn till Tuesday 15th October.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to put before the House one or two suggestions in relation to the proposal to adjourn on Wednesday for the Summer Recess. We have not discussed an important development which occurred towards the end of last week when the Secretary of State for Industry on Thursday and Saturday announced massive public subsidies for two projects which are being carried on by groups of workers. The first is a subsidy of £1·75 million for the old Beaverbrook Scottish Daily Express, to produce a newspaper which, if it gets off the ground, is to be called the Scottish Daily News. Secondly, a subsidy has been announced of £4·95 million, nearly all of which is for the old Triumph motor cycle factory. These sizeable sums of money should not be advanced for those projects without proper discussion in Parliament. Whether or not one is in favour of public money being spent in this way, there are questions which should be put to and answered by the Secretary of State for Industry on the Floor of the House.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry on Friday and told him that I should be raising these two matters on the motion for the Adjournment should I be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State was here until about 20 minutes ago but unfortunately he has left. In the hope that the OFFICIAL REPORT will eventually be published, I will put some questions about these two proposed loans in the hope that the Government will bring their mind to bear on them.
First, what is the interest rate on the loan money and what are the terms of repayment of the proposed loan of £1·75 million to the former Scottish Daily Express? No statement has been made by the Government in this respect. The Department published a Press release giving details of the loan, but complete


silence was maintained about the repayment terms and the rate of interest. Why have not the House and the country been informed of these details?
Secondly, why has the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board—which was set up to advise the Government on loans of this type—been entirely ignored? The board, which consists of skilled and knowledgeable people, was set up to advise the Government specifically on instances like this. Is the risk a sound one? Is the loan a good investment from the taxpayer's point of view? Both in respect of the Scottish Daily News and the Triumph motor cycle company, the board said that the developments were not viable and the loans were not sound, and advised the Government against them. If the right hon. Gentleman were here I should ask him why he has lent taxpayers' money to both these projects in defiance of the advice he received from this statutory board which was set up for this very purpose. I feel strongly that it is wrong that taxpayers' money should be spent in this way.
In both cases considerable expenditure is involved. How can it be said that there is a reasonable chance of making the new Scottish Daily News pay when the advice of the IDAB is disregarded and when Beaverbrook Newspapers themselves could not make it pay? We must remember that Beaverbrook Newspapers had access to an international staff, international wire services and all the other facilities needed by a great daily newspaper. If the Scottish Daily News ever gets off the ground it will have to buy those services; it will not have them provided by the skilled staff in the Express. Surely a project such as this is extremely dicey.
Another aspect that worries me very much on the proposed Scottish Daily News relates to the politics of the new newspaper. Let us suppose that it gets off the ground. Let us also suppose that the Government loan of £1·75 million, representing about half of the money needed, enables the group to publish a daily newspaper. Is it not right that if public money is to be spent the newspaper must at least be impartial, that at the very least it must present its politics and news in an unbiased manner, and that at the least the committee that is to

run it—a committee composed of 16 people—should consist of all shades of political opinion? It is surely better that they should be not extremists to the Left or the Right, but preferably moderates and at any rate covering the full spectrum of opinion.
Yet when we examine the committee that is to run the proposed newspaper we find that, far from representing moderate or centre opinion, many of the 16-strong committee are very far to the Left in politics. Its chairman is Mr. Alistair Mackie, who is a Bathgate Labour councillor. In addition, the spokesman for the committee is Mr. Nathan Goldberg, who describes himself as of international Socialist sympathies.
Five or six of the other committee members are very Left-wing Socialists and in addition there is at least one paid-up member of the Communist Party. If taxpayers' money is to be put into a project of this nature, and if Parliament is not to have a chance to debate it, surely at least the committee set up to run the project should be of moderate and centre-of-the-road appearance.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since Mr. Mackie is my constituent may I say that had the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to find out he would have discovered that Mr. Mackie is a fairly moderate man and is no further to the Left than Lord Thomson is to the Right.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Secretary of State for Industry is anxious to be consistent and we know that he likes Government nominees on any company which receives Government money. My hon. Friend read out the list of Government nominees. We should like to know who is to represent the public.

Mr. Farr: Following those two helpful contributions I shall pass to another point. Apart from the Scottish Daily News and the £1·75 million earmarked for that project, there is an even bigger loan which we must consider. I refer to the figure of £4·95 million of public money to what is left of the old Triumph Motor Cycle Company. The first question I would have put to the Secretary of State for Industry if he were present would be as follows: why has he arrived at the strange figure of £4·95 million?


Since I did not think he would be here, I took the trouble to look up the answer. The answer is that current legislation permits him to lend only up to £5 million on any one project without coming to Parliament to obtain approval. Why is he so anxious that Parliament should not discuss the matter? Why is he so intent on the exact figure of £4·95 million—namely £750,000 by way of grant and £4·2 million by way of loan, making just under £5 million? Why does he fasten upon that figure, unless it is chosen and designed to avoid parliamentary debate and parliamentary discussion on the propriety of the loan?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I admire the hon. Gentleman for his logical reasoning. I hope he will extend his reasoning to the sum of £4·8 million which the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), advanced for exactly the same reasons to Norton Villiers Triumph on 19th March last year. Will he extend the same criticism in respect of that loan?

Mr. Peter Walker: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that when we decided that matter, we felt that in respect of a sum as large as £5 million it should be put before Parliament—and that is what we did.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is an occasion when hon. Members make a number of points briefly to enable the Leader of the House to answer them. I have about 20 Members on my list who want to address the House and this debate must be limited in time. It is wrong for an hon. Member and other hon. Members who disagree with him to take the whole of the time on one subject. Mr. Farr.

Mr. Farr: I shall be very quick, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not give way again.
I would remind the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) that it would be in the Labour Party's interest if he did not interrupt me again. In addition, the Industrial Development Advisory Board approved the previous loan but the present loan approved by the Secretary of State for Industry has been condemned as not being viable. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to risk taxpayers' money in that way. I am not against these experiments in principle,

but I believe it is totally wrong for public money to be risked in such a way. The terms of the Act under which the Secretary of State for Industry is proposing to make the loans require that they must be made in the national interest. I do not see how he can show that it is in the national interest that a loan of almost £5 million should be made to what is left of the Triumph motor-cycle industry when only 300 or so of the original work force of 1,700 are left to work in the factory, or what remains of it.
It cannot be in the national interest for any Government to subsidise workers who take over factories in the illicit manner in which the Triumph motor-cycle workers took over their factory. They prevented the owners of the factory from possessing their own goods. They did that persistently for a considerable time at great loss to the company. Surely the indiscriminate subsidising of wildcat projects of this nature can only encourage illicit action by other militant groups of workers. Do the Government think it right that militant groups of workers should be subsidised by State money in this way? If other companies and private individuals could obtain from the Government loans probably at favoured rates—as apparently has been the case with these two groups—on the same basis they could make a real contribution to Britain's future and to our exports.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has made a case for this House taking a shorter recess. I agree with that entirely. I have always been opposed to these long recesses, especially the long Summer Recess, because invariably they are to the great advantage of whichever Government happen to be in power at the time. Irrespective of their political complexions, I dislike all Governments. I suspect them and I want to keep them firmly under control and accountable to this House.
In the course of the next three months, in view of the economic situation, the British public would be astounded to know that this House would not be sitting, during which time the Government could say and do what they liked without being accountable to us or to anyone else. We had statements last week and again today


by the Leader of the House indicating that various very important negotiations of one kind or another will take place in our absence, with no chance for us to debate them. We all know that every Thursday there are demands from all parts of the House for debates on various different topics. The repeated answer is "There is no time".
Either the public choose not to understand or simply do not understand that when we go away for three months it is not for three months' holiday. Nevertheless, I suspect that most hon. Members have more holiday than most of their constituents. Certainly that is the impression outside this House.
My amendment, which has not been selected, was not a frivolous amendment. I wanted an additional few days to debate matters which are often controversial but which cut across party politics and are important. If my proposition had been accepted, we would have had another 10 sitting days, still leaving about nine weeks away from this House, which in all conscience seems to me to be enough, whether it be that we engage in electioneering, holidaying or whatever.
I chose 15th August deliberately because it would involve some sacrifice. I would miss my grouse shooting on the 12th, as would my constituents in Central Fife. But, like Sir Denys Lowson, we all have to make sacrifices in the national interest. I think that the public would understand and appreciate the kind of gesture that we were making.
We could devote one of those days to debating the evil and greedy machinations of that arch-Tory villain whose activities were uncovered by the inspectors of the Department of Trade and revealed by the Sunday newspapers this weekend. He is the very epitome of the economic system which the Tory Party extols and espouses with such understandable avidity.
On another day and in juxtaposition to that debate on Sir Denys Lowson and his kind, we could debate the state of the National Health Service and compare the activities of an arch-capitalist and his unbelievable greed and avarice with the devotion and dedication of our nurses and all the others who work in what is still one of the greatest social services in the world.
I sought to get a debate on this subject on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have been drawn No. 35 or 37, so my chances are fairly dim. Therefore, I take this opportunity to say that we should not rise for the Summer Recess unless and until we have had a chance to debate the state of the National Health Service. The Halsbury Report could be available to the Government before 15th August or within a very short time, and we know that the Prime Minister himself is having talks with representatives from all branches of the National Health Service. We shall not have a chance to debate what transpires at that meeting.
Another subject which will be debated tonight is that which occupies the fifth position in the list. It is initiated by Liberal hon. Members and others, and it is on the Kilbrandon Report. However that may be, it will be unsatisfactory from the point of view of all parties. We ought to have had a chance of one day's or even two days' debate on that very important report on the Floor of the House at a civilised hour before rising for the Summer Recess.
There is turmoil within all parties—the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party, the Tory Party and even my own party. All are in great turmoil and confusion about how to devolve decision-making or even the legislative process as between this House and any other assemblies which might be set up in other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that it is highly unsatisfactory that this House has not been given an opportunity to debate this extremely important subject.
The fourth debate would arise directly out of the statement by the Leader of the House today on the pay and conditions of Members of Parliament and in answer to a Question of mine earlier today about how this House works. That would include the recesses, of course.
I have always taken the view that the House might do well to return to the experiment initiated by the late Dick Crossman of having morning sittings not primarily for Government legislation or Government-initiated debates but for Private Members' business.
I take one example. The Adjournment debate is a great inconvenience, coming as it does at the end of the day, to the


Member himself, to the Minister and the civil servants concerned, and to the Press. If we had a renamed debate or two each morning, there would be involved only the Members and Minister concerned. No one else need bother to attend. In present circumstances no one else ever bothers to attend. It would be to the great convenience of the Members, of the Ministers concerned and of the Press to take the now so-called Adjournment debates on the Floor of the House in morning sittings. It seems to me that this is a matter which should be gone into much more carefully and which should not be thrust aside with the degree of ridicule and contempt that befell the Crossman experiment.
Another matter which we could discuss in a debate at this time and which hardly ever gets discussed is our Select Committee procedure. As hon. Members know, there are a number of extremely valuable Select Committee reports containing a lot of fundamental information not otherwise available to hon. Members which are never debated on the Floor of the House.
I happen to serve on the Expenditure Committee. One of its Sub-Committees reported recently on the private sector of the National Health Service. All the evidence submitted to the Committee suggested gross abuses of the health service by the private sector. However, the Tory majority membership of that Committee deliberately used their majority to fly in the face of all the evidence and to give a vote of thanks to the private sector, when there was specific evidence that consultants in private practice were actually thieving very expensive equipment from the health service for their private use and charging their private patients for it as if it were their own. That is the kind of subject which this House should debate and which it never debates.
I should like to mention another matter which need not involve either votes or Members.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Too long.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady should be the last person to talk about anyone taking too long.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am always brief.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I am not as hysterical as the hon. Lady.
I should like to refer to Private Members' Bills which fall by the wayside time and again because an anonymous hon. Member gets up on a Friday and shouts "Object" when it is well known that many of those Bills have widespread support.
I mention specifically my own Scottish Divorce Bill which has the support of the Church of Scotland, the Law Commission in Scotland and a whole lot of respectable bodies and non-party, non-political organisations. Yet it is denied a Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has a Bill on the tied cottage. I remind him and others of my hon. Friends that as long ago as 1947 a unanimous resolution of the Labour Party Conference recommended the total abolition of the tied cottage. It was Nye Bevan who said "This conference can pass what decisions it likes, but the Government of the day will decide what they do in the House." The tied cottage is still with us. When hon. Members on this side of the House talk about the importance of obeying conference decisions, they had better understand that, whatever conference decides, the Government of the day, particularly a Labour Government, will decide what legislation is introduced. That principle started with Keir Hardie and carried on right through to Nye Bevan.
I now turn to a very important problem which should be under continual review by the House. There is a good argument for not having a holiday at all—indeed, we do not deserve one—if we are judged by results in the economy. The economy has steadily worsened over the years, not only in the last four months, and the likelihood is that it will go on worsening. The present Government's record in dealing with the economy is nothing of which to be ashamed. On the contrary, we shall fight the election in large measure on what we have done to remedy the great deficiencies that were created by the previous Government. But over the next few years the only honest call to our people can be fair shares of misery with the biggest burdens being carried on the broadest backs. That is the only message that we can convey to the people of this country. The longer


and the louder we shout that message both inside and outside this House, the better it will be for our democracy.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I have made several perorations, but I have not yet made the last. I want the House and the people of this country to understand that large numbers of hon. Members do not want this House to go into recess for three months. It is well known that we shall have a General Election before we come back. I think that is well recognised. It is just a question of the timing. That will no doubt be exclusively in the national interest, and I have no doubt about the result. But it will mean that we are away for three months, and that will be three months too long.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: There are moments when I find myself beginning to agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). When he said that the recess was going to be too long, I thought he might carry me with him, but his back is not broad enough.
I think the House should sit longer. It is a mistake to go away and leave the Government to get on without our invigilation. However, I understand why we are going away for so long. In part, it is due to the exhaustion of the Government, and particularly of the Whips Office, as we had only too evident testimony in our midst just now.
I share the desire at least of the hon. Member for Fife, Central that we should have a debate on the National Health Service and the immense strains to which it is being subjected. There is no monopoly of political interest in this matter. There is no monopoly of concern about the dangers in the service with militants who work in a way which can scarcely do the morale of those who work within and are served by the NHS any good. The underlying situation must cause grave concern to all in this House who care about the National Health Service and respect the efforts and dedication of those who work within it. That is a subject on which we should have an extensive debate and on which we should hear from the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Concorde, to move rapidly to another area, is a subject on which we should undoubtedly have been given more information. Unhappily, the Secretary of State for Industry just escaped having to answer a Question on that subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) this afternoon. It seems a highly paradoxical situation when this great apostle of open government, as he made himself known amongst us, is content that the House should have to scratch about amongst the transcripts of the Prime Minister's Press conference in Paris to find out what the situation is. If he is so proud of the project and cares so much about open government, may I ask what stopped him coming to the House to give us the facts about what is going on, what has been decided and what it all means? Why cannot we stay one more day and have a debate on that subject?
Why must we wait until goodness knows when to have a debate on the Defence White Paper which everybody knows is gathering dust in some pigeonhole in the Secretary of State's office? Is he so afraid to bring it out and reveal its contents to us? That in itself is sufficient for us to insist on hearing something on so vital a matter.

Mr. Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is even more serious, because it appears that the Government are consulting our NATO allies about the matter and are refusing to consult this House or to tell the country what is happening?

Mr. Onslow: Many people in NATO and in this country fear that the effect of the proposals in the White Paper will be such as to make us a useless member of that alliance. They fear that the proposals in the White Paper will not merely affect British influence in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere, but will gravely damage this country's capacity to defend itself as a member of Europe. Why cannot we have a debate on that matter?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently told us that there was a certainty of rising unemployment. Why cannot we have some indication from the Ministry of Defence of the extent to which it could hive off to industry at large some of the jobs at present undertaken by Service men who are just


uniformed fitters? There is an enormous amount of work in support of the teeth arms of our industry being done by a very long tail. If there is room for economy—there may be in the defence arms of this country—at least let us have an opportunity now, when unemployment threatens many industries, to consider whether defence work could be put in to fill up the empty shops.
Another White Paper which is missing —it may be a green, pink or another colour paper—concerns the proposals by the Secretary of State for Industry for the great excess of nationalisation, the great rush of blood to the head which he has been nursing for so long. Why cannot we have a debate on those proposals before the House rises? Most of us would be prepared to give up an extra day to hear the right hon. Gentleman's plans and to learn, incidentally, how far they are supported by his hon. Friends. I think that this is perhaps the most important and overriding reason why the House should not rise and leave the Government uninvigilated in the hands of that minority opposite. We know that they are divided amongst themselves. We have seen the curious evidence of their standard of behaviour in the Clay Cross correspondence. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends will touch on that matter if they catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
The motto of Transport House these days seems to be "Do not put anything in writing". I suppose it is dangerous for so divided a party to put anything in writing or to tie itself down to any fixed point of view. The Leader of the House, most of all, is aware of the dangers of getting out of his political depth. But that is no reason why we should tolerate that state of affairs. It is no reason why the country should be content to see Parliament rise and have the business, the crises and the decisions that have to be taken left to a divided and mutually hostile Cabinet. That seems to be the greatest reason of all for us to be prepared to make some sacrifice and for the House to remain in session.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and go one step further. I cannot see why discussions could not take place through the usual channels with a view

to off-season Adjournment debates being arranged throughout August, during which time the House could be run by a skeleton staff. The only people who would object would be civil servants. Every Department has more than one Minister. The hours could be reasonable—say, from 10 a.m. till 5 p.m. Hon. Members would then be enabled to raise the 101 subjects which accumulate. There would be no need for votes or for Ministers to be tied to their desks or to the House. Members who wished to be here could be here. Those with constituency engagements or with other work to attend to could attend to that. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter; it is a serious proposition. I cannot see why the House needs to go into recess as such when all it need do is to go into a period of temporary adjournment as to Bills.
I oppose this Adjournment motion on almost identical grounds to those on which I opposed the Adjournment at Easter, when I detailed to my right hon. Friend the difficulties which my constituents and I were suffering because we had not enough teachers and schools. Six hundred children per day had to be sent home because there were no schools for them and no teachers to teach them. Even though that contravened the Education Act, and even though the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Government were breaking the law, nothing was done about it.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he had sympathy because he was a former head teacher. Sympathy is all very well, but when we are thinking of going into the long Summer Recess I still have that problem. The report on London weighting, which is a farce, has made the situation even more difficult. Areas such as the East End. Newham and West Ham which are gravely short of teachers, of schools and of housing accommodation for the teachers they cannot get will have the teachers that they have got attracted from them to Inner London areas.
Another issue which I shall not be able to debate unless we adjourn for a shorter period is the NALGO officers' refusal to carry out their full duties. I do not blame them. In Tower Hamlets, Newham and the East End generally, the law is being broken. Acts of Parliament are not being complied with. The


Government are breaking the law, and no action is being taken. Refuse is being piled in the streets for weeks on end. Sites near housing are being opened up as refuse dumps because no facilities are being made available for the collection of refuse.
My local council claims—rightly—that the NALGO officers are entitled to their increase but the council is not allowed to pay it because the Government will not help them to pay the extra. I cannot agree to the House going into recess when I know that the health of my constituents —women and children—is being threatened and when there is a grave possibility of an epidemic unless the Government take action.
The last time I mentioned this my right hon. Friend said that he could do nothing about it and that it was a matter for Burnham in regard to the teachers and it was a question of negotiation as to London weighting. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said that negotiations must proceed.
It is amazing. When the Government, irrespective of party, want to act, they act overnight. But they say that they cannot agree to give the local government officers a rise because the rise was originally outside the Pay Code, which is now abolished.
The Government can increase the Patronage Secretary's salary by 39 per cent., from £9,500 to £13,000. Did the Pay Board investigate that increase? Did Lord Boyle investigate it? My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary may be worthy of the increase. In the same way, there are statutes which provide that the refuse of my constituents should be collected, but the Government take no action to ensure that it is collected. I repeat that when the Government want to do something they can; and when the Opposition want to work something to suit themselves they run with the Government.
It might be said that this matter can be raised in writing. Has any hon. Member opposite had my experience about corresponding with Government Departments? It takes three months to get an answer. This applies not just to one Department but to several Departments.

I have here chapter and verse in a dozen cases, but I will not quote them in detail.
To mention one example, one of my constituents alleged that a wrong operation had been performed on him and that he had suffered. I raised this matter with the Department of Health in April. I received a letter in July from the Minister apologising for the delay and saying that the doctor was on holiday. That took from April to July. Either the Minister knew that the doctor was not on holiday for four months, or he should have known. He should have been able to say that it was not good enough to keep a Member waiting from April to July for a reply which should have taken only a few weeks. However, this Minister is not kicked in the pants; he is promoted.
Then I wrote to a chap at the Home Department—I do not know his name; I have never met him.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Jenkins?

Mr. Lewis: No, I will deal with him later. This was a chap called Harris, I think, who did not even know how to send off letters, who did not know that Members had to have copies, and who did not know the procedure. I then discovered that this was one of the brilliant back-room boys who had been brought into another place to deal with the matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Home Secretary. He is even worse; it is impossible to get a letter from him. He has a crowd of underlings. It takes months for the underlings to reply. On principle, the Secretary of State never replies to anything. He can make speeches attacking other people. I suggest that I should be permitted to do a bit of work in his Department and then we shall see that Members of Parliament then get replies to correspondence within a reasonable period.
I started at the bottom and now I go higher. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replies expeditiously to letters—I give him full marks for that—but when I see him to complain about Ministers I do not get any helpful support. He tells me to take it up with the Ministers. This is similar to the situation regarding complaints against the police. One is told that the police will investigate


the police. The police investigate and find that their fellow policemen have done nothing wrong, and it seems that whoever has complained in the first place is in the wrong. It is not good enough that Ministers should be in a position of not being able to, or refusing to, reply to letters. If the House is not in session we cannot raise issues such as those I wish to raise.
I read in a newspaper yesterday about a scandalous situation. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who has left the Chamber, has mentioned my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, The headline in the newspaper stated "Storm over angel face", not "Storm over Jenkins". The man referred to has a dangerous criminal record. He has allegedly shot several policemen. I am told that no Member of the House knew that this man had been let out on parole and was running a home for battered mothers. [Laughter.] This is a serious matter, not a laughing matter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who is responsible for such matters is not here and so we cannot question him.

Mr Hugh Dykes: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments before he referred to the newspaper article, is he trying to establish a case that the Left-wing Ministers in the Labour Government reply promptly and that moderate Ministers are dilatory in replying?

Mr. Lewis: No; the hon. Gentleman should know that I have made complaints involving Governments, Ministers and Prime Ministers of both parties. The previous Prime Minister got a long list of complaints from me. The list of complaints received from me by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister is not as great, but it is catching up. There has been dilatoriness and neglect on the part of almost all Ministers. There have been only one or two honourable exceptions. I am making a general attack on Ministers because it is not possible to single out civil servants and, after all, Ministers have responsibility for their Departments. I raise this matter in the interests of Parliament and the electorate, and particularly the taxpayer. The taxpayer pays my salary and the salaries of other hon. Members, as well as Ministers' salaries.
If a taxpayer finds that because of bureaucracy and neglect he cannot get a problem solved, it is only in exasperation that at the last moment he takes it up with his Member of Parliament. It is wrong for a Member of Parliament to be kept waiting three or four months for replies to matters which constituents have raised, particularly when we have a whole batch of Ministers whose job it is, or should be, to ensure that replies are given reasonbly quickly. I do not care whether the Ministers are Left-wing or Right-wing. If the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) chooses to talk about Left-wing Ministers, I can talk about trade and industry matters. I have complaints regarding these matters now and I have had them in the past. The right hon. Member for Worcester will recall that on many occasions I gave him full chapter and verse about companies which were fiddling—though legally—day in, day out, long before the Lowson and Lonrho affairs. I make complaints about such matters, yet no action is taken—I beg the House' pardon. In the case of Lonrho one person who was concerned was elevated to the Upper House. But often nothing is done. There have been many cases—another example was the V & G case. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will recall that I kept him posted with details of many cases.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is always choosing the wrong companies as examples of his complaints. If he would refer to the correct companies there would be more in what he says. Perhaps in future he will take care to pick the right companies, rather than proceed to accuse innocent people of serious offences.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that the facts of the Lowson affair were known. A report has been made and I can only go by what it says. If the hon. Gentleman says that the report was wrong and that the man concerned did not make £5 million by means of somewhat reprehensible conduct, and if that man has paid back the money which he promised to pay back 18 months ago, I withdraw what I said. I can only go by what is reported in the Press—which he has not denied—that he made over £5 million and promised to pay back the money 18 months


ago. The Lonrho affair was also published and one person who was concerned in it went to another place.
All the cases which I have referred to Government Departments, both in the time of the previous Government and now, relate to companies which have not been carrying out the law as they should have been. These matters should be considered irrespective of party politics. All hon. Members, regardless of where they sit in the House and regardless of whether they are Ministers, ex-Ministers, aspiring Ministers or back benchers, should support me on this. We have all had experience of being kept waiting for three or four months for replies from Government Departments which is wrong. If I and most other hon. Members with only part-time secretarial assistance can deal, as we do, with our correspondence often by return of post, and certainly within a few days, surely it is not too much to hope that Ministers, with all the paraphernalia of the Civil Service can ensure that Members get prompt replies. We are entitled to this, and so is the taxpayer. We should have replies within a reasonable time, even if they are unsatisfactory.
I turn now to matters relating to the Post Office, which has given shocking service during the past few years. I am not making party political points on this. I opposed the setting up of the Post Office Corporation. I prophesied to the last Labour Government that what has been happening would happen. It has taken 10 days for a letter to go from one borough to another. I swear that that is true. I had to wait seven working days for a letter to reach me at the House of Commons from County Hall. I told the Chairman of the Post Office that if the letter had been dropped in the gutter at County Hall it would have got here more quickly. It contained an urgent message from County Hall and by the time I got it, it was outdated.
If we were not to adjourn shortly for the recess I could raise some of these cases in the House. I would probably have to do some manœuvring to raise matters about the Post Office because we are told that we cannot be given replies on day-to-day matters affecting the Post Office.
There are cases of shocking neglect. The taxpayer is entitled to complain and we ought to have the right to put forward here complaints on his behalf.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, may I remind the House of Mr. Speaker' request that speeches should be brief in view of the fact that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Before we rise for the Summer Recess, I would point out that it is disturbing that the Government have not allowed time for a debate on the extension of the dock labour scheme. What is more disturbing is that the Government introduced the proposal hurriedly, without even consulting the port employers.
I believe that the reason that time has not been found for a debate is that the Government know that the case for the extension of the scheme is weak, that it is part of the election programme of the Left wing of the Labour Party, part of the Foot and Benn disease of the Labour Party, to bring in further nationalisation to the detriment of the smaller ports. It is opposed by all the smaller ports and can bring no benefits either to the employees or to the port users. It will mean duplication of staff and facilities and will be detrimental to the country' interests.
We should find time for a debate on this subject very soon. This proposal affects not just the private ports but the British Railways ports. It was the British Railways ports and particularly the National Union of Railwaymen who stood their ground at the time of the last docks strike. To introduce this scheme will lead only to internecine strife in the unions. An extension of the scheme will mean the closing down of many smaller ports and unemployment.
I am delighted that the Home Secretary has spoken up against further nationalisation and the Left-wing policies of the Government. At present, the Labour Party is facing not just Foot and Benn disease but a "War of Jenkins' Ear"—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is not just his ear they are after.

Mr. Ridsdale: As my hon. Friend says—not just the Home Secretary's ear.
I hope that the country will be aware of this attempt to bring in nationalisation of our ports by the back door, without a debate in the House.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) began this debate by arguing that before the House adjourns we should discuss the expenditure of public money in subsidies and loans to various firms which had got into difficulties. I should like briefly to ask the Government whether we can have some information before we rise about other subsidies of greater amounts of the taxpayer's money.
It was announced only on Friday night, in the Press and not in this House, that the EEC authorities in Brussels had sold 50,000 tons of subsidised beef to the Soviet Union. Because it is only outside the Common Market ring that Common Market food can be sold cheap, that beef had to be subsidised so that the Russians could buy it, as we are not allowed to do, at a much lower price than would have to charged within the EEC.
The subsidies which enable the fortunate Russians to get 50,000 tons of beef—a third of the whole EEC beef mountain—cheap come out of the agricultural funds of the EEC, which are partly sustained by the British taxpayer from the budget payments that we make.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: May I remind my right hon. Friend that at the same time as they are selling this beef to the Russians, we are paying import levies on food coming into this country?

Mr. Jay: I was going to make that point, which I am sure is fully in order.
The extraordinary situation—I am raising the matter because taxpayers' money is involved—is that the unfortunate British consumer who is also a taxpayer has to pay twice over. First, he pays a great deal more for his beef than if we could import it freely from countries such as Australia which can sell it much more cheaply than the Common Market price. Second, as a taxpayer through VAT and other taxes he has to put up the money which enables the Russian consumer to get the

beef more cheaply than I do. That is an extraordinary arrangement. This has happened with butter, now it is beef and heaven knows what will be next.
Within only the last two weeks the Minister of Agriculture made a statement about the beef decision in Brussels but said nothing about this sale. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not conceal from the House an important transaction of this kind, involving the expenditure of British public money. Are we then to understand that the Minister of Agriculture was unaware of this transaction, involving tens of millions of pounds and directly affecting his discussions only about 10 days ago in Brussels? If that is so, it is a remarkable comment on the way in which business is conducted in the EEC. If he had been told about what was going on, I cannot doubt that he would have informed the House.
So that is my first question: can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Minister of Agriculture was aware of this and how much money is involved in subsidising the sale of this 50,000 tons of beef?
There is one other important question. Does the decision to carry out this transaction amount to a formal decision, regulation or directive of the Council of Ministers? If it does, it is a legislative act which should have come before the Scrutiny Committee of this House. I am a member of that committee. Although the amount of paper that descends upon us is almost impossible to digest in the time available, as my hon. Friends will agree, I have no knowledge of any draft directive of regulation of this kind.
Is this something which the Commission has done without any authority from the Council of Ministers? On the other hand, if it is a decision of the Council of Ministers, can we know why it has never been reported to the Scrutiny Committee and this House?

5.18 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) gave an exhortation to be loud and long and certainly followed his own advice. I prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to heed your injunction and that


of Mr. Speaker and to be very brief. Unfortunately, although the subject to which I wish to address myself in the context of this motion is one on which I can be short, it is not of itself sweet.
I wish to refer to the recent sad events in Cyprus and particularly to those British citizens resident in Cyprus whose lives are attended with difficulty and danger and for whom of course the Government and Parliament have responsibility.
I am well aware that foreign affairs are notoriously unmindful of our parliamentary timetable and that many of the most critical and unwelcome events in the international sphere happen when Parliament either is in recess or wants to be. Nor would I suggest that the House should not go into recess until we reach a definitive constitutional settlement of the Cyprus problem. But that is something which even if it be not postponed to the Greek kalends—and I am not as pessimistic as that—is, I am well aware, likely to be something of a long haul. But in that long haul I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is doing his best in the tripartite talks in which he is at present engaged.
I wish to deal with a narrower but more immediate aspect of the problems of the British citizens there and of their safety and well-being. Only this morning there were further disturbing reports in several newspapers of the plight of our fellow citizens in Cyprus. They drew an unwelcome and ominous picture of the position of these British residents, particularly in the Kyrenia area, so far from the sovereign bases, and the area where fighting has been heaviest and most prolonged. We see there a picture of shortage of supplies, food running down, a breakdown of services and communications and now trespass and looting in the homes.
I hope we shall have a statement from the Foreign Secretary, perhaps tomorrow, that he will give the House all the information he can before we go into recess. I ask the Leader of the House to urge his right hon. Friends to approach this as a matter of extreme urgency and importance. I hope they will do that in particular in two ways. First, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make strong representation not only to the

Cypriot authorities but to the Greek and Turkish Governments, and particularly at the present time to the Turkish Government since the Turkish Army is in control of the Kyrenia area. I hope that these representations will make clear that Britain expects a safeguarding of the interests, the lives and the property of British citizens there and that those citizens will be treated with due forbearance and respect.
I hope that when the Foreign Secretary makes a statement to the House he will be able to give us an assurance that all practical help needed by British citizens and residents in Cyprus generally, and in the Kyrenia area in particular, whether from the High Commissioner's department at Nicosia or from the sovereign bases, will be speedily and effectively forthcoming. I hope that we may be assured before the House rises that all practical and effective steps open to Her Majesty's Government will be taken to safeguard the lives and property of our fellow citizens in Cyprus, caught up through no fault of their own, and often in the twilight of their lives, in these tragic and intractable events.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to meet the request of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith Concern on this issue is not the prerogative of one side but is shared by us all in our anxiety for our former constituents who may be resident in Cyprus or married to Cypriot, Greek or Turkish nationals and who have gone to live in the area. Our hearts go out to them in their tremendous problems and I join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in hoping that we shall have a statement from the Foreign Secretary.
In urging that the House should not adjourn immediately, I had expected to be asking my right hon. Friend to allow us to take the remaining proceedings of my Hare Coursing Bill. Fortunately further wisdom has descended upon the Government, as it did in 1970, and they have agreed to accept a Bill to abolish hare coursing as a Government measure after the House returns, In those circumstances I congratulate my right hon. Friend on


the Government's wisdom, and, because this measure has a large amount of popular support across all parties in the House and all classes of people in the country, I hope that we shall hear undertakings from the other party leaders who hope to form the Government after the recess that, should they be successful, they will introduce a similar Government Bill.
I am confident, however, that the Labour Party will form that Government and that one of my right hon. Friends will introduce that measure. For that reason I turn to another matter which leads me to suggest that the House should not rise early. In the credit control order of the last Government in 1973 restrictions were for the first time placed upon a particular industry which is important throughout the country, but particularly in my constituency. That order placed great difficulties upon its development. It is threatening employment and is seriously hampering the Government's plans to modernise homes. The restrictions have been placed upon the purchase of central heating installations by finance from sources other than building societies.
Central heating installations are tremendously important not only to the comfort of individuals but in modernising homes and in the amount of energy they are capable of saving. They have been subjected for the first time to the most severe of credit restrictions. Anyone seeking to install central heating must put down a third of the cost of the installation and repay the balance over two years. Since these installations cost upwards of £500, that represents a hefty sum for an ordinary working-class family to find in these difficult times.
This is having a severe effect upon the industry, and over the last few years my hon. Friends the Members for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and Deane Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and myself have been lobbying Ministers, hoping to raise the matter on the Adjournment and writing letters to try to get some change in the order, which can only have been a mistake in the first place. One cannot help feeling somehow that the matter has become bogged down in Treasury bureaucracy with civil servants anxious not to alter decisions and putting up all sorts of false excuses to Ministers.
In my constituency is located the important firm of Ideal Standard. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is located the firm of Myson. Just to make this a happy trio the General and Municipal Workers' Union of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) organises the workers at Ideal Standard. These factories are threatened with redundancies, short time and a severe cutback in expansion. The employment prospects of the people in the area are being jeopardised by the effects of the credit control order.
Seventy per cent. of central heating installations are in home modernisation schemes. Of those only 10 per cent. are financed by extensions to mortgages. So the overall effect of the last Government's action, which the present Government have not sought to rectify, has been that the modernisation of houses, which is such an important plank in our party's programme, as it was in the programme of the last Government, is suffering a setback by this severe restriction. It affects not only the manufacturers of appliances but builders' merchants and plumbers who are faced with redundancies. I do not want the House to rise without receiving a clear indication from the Leader of the House that he will look carefully at the way the order has affected the industry for the first time.
In every other credit restriction, under Labour or Conservative Government, in freeze or squeeze, central heating installations have been exempted because of their importance in the building programme and in energy conservation. It is wrong that the industry should now have this problem, coupled with the problems of redundancy throughout the industry and the setback in housing though we are trying to get the building industry back on its feet. The central heating industry has never been affected before, and it is a unique case. The House should not rise without my right hon. Friend's having said that he will try speedily to make arrangements to meet this urgent need.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Harry West: I want to examine the advisability of the House rising for a long


Summer Recess, in view of the great tragedies that are occurring in Northern Ireland. I listened with great interest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) speak of the tragedy of Cyprus, but nearer home there is the dreadful tragedy of Northern Ireland. Although it has been going on for almost five years, there is no reason why the matter should not be aired once more.
The real cause of the tragedy is the total ineffectiveness of the security effort in Northern Ireland. We have the greatest respect and gratitude for the work being done on the ground by the security forces generally, but unfortunately it is not containing the situation or getting on top of the problem.
We have repeatedly made certain overtures to responsible Ministers in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water about what more needs to be done and should be done to save human life in Northern Ireland. People are still being murdered. Within the past two or three days people have been disappearing without trace. A neighbour of mine disappeared without trace two days ago. A search has been going on for him ever since. Such incidents cause tremendous hardship to wives and relatives. Yesterday another man disappeared and cannot be traced.
These matters tend to build up. There is always a danger of retaliation from one side or the other. The whole problem needs a complete review, and the security effort needs a complete overhaul.
I have been advocating for some time that we should cut off the supply of arms, ammunition and explosives at the source—that is, at the border between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Hon. Members who visit that country will know that the border is wide open for the free movement of explosives, arms, ammunition and terrorists from Eire into Northern Ireland. It seems to me and to many people who live there that it is a waste of effort having troops chasing round Belfast and other cities trying to collect explosives, arms and ammunition when they could be engaged in curtailing their entry on the land frontier between Northern Ireland and Eire.
For some time I have urged the need to close many of the minor roads completely and block off the traffic on them, leaving probably only half-a-dozen main crossing areas between Northern Ireland and Eire. I would have those crossing points manned by troops 24 hours a day to search vehicles and interrogate pedestrians. I think that that is sensible and sound, but for some peculiar reason nobody on the political or security side has given the matter serious consideration.
There will be those who say that the people on the ground and the military know best, but we should not neglect the advice of the people who have lived there all their lives, who know what is going on and who have seen similar campaigns defeated. Four months ago a group of professional men and businessmen asked me to obtain an interview with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They come from seven villages and towns along the border between my constituency and the Irish Republic. For some reason the Secretary of State will not meet them to hear their point of view on what should be done to curtail the movement of illegal arms and ammunition across the border.
Since I made the request a young lady in the UDR has been shot. I believe that it happened through great neglect. The advice of the people who live there should be listened to. It is a shame that in these tragic circumstances the Secretary of State will not listen to the advice of responsible citizens who live in these dangerous areas. He has put the deputation off to a lesser member of his team. One member of the team in Northern Ireland does not enjoy the full confidence of the Northern Ireland community because of his activities some years before he took up office. That is why they do not want to discuss these matters with him. On these important issues, the Secretary of State should have a discussion with them.
I should also like to raise another item of great importance to the whole nation. I believe that the House is not fully alerted to the dangers to this country's food supply of the crisis in agriculture. There is a serious crisis throughout the United Kingdom which will endanger the nation's food supply in the coming years and substantially raise the cost of living.
Agriculture is not an industry that can be revived overnight. The policy should


be to prevent deterioration in the industry and keep the confidence of the farmers at a high level. We have in almost all aspects of the industry in Northern Ireland a great crisis. The milk industry, which gets a very sympathetic ear in the Community, will run into serious problems at the end of the year or in the autumn. The cost of producing milk is rising steeply, and the farmers' unions will require a special price review at the end of the autumn to sustain producers' confidence.
Towards the end of the year producers in Britain will not be able to meet the total requirements of the people of Britain for milk and milk products from their own resources. In addition, there is no butter in intervention now, and cheese is scarce in the EEC. There is a need for an urgent review of the United Kingdom milk industry.
The beef industry in the United Kingdom is in tremendous difficulties. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what he has done in his discussions in the Common Market. He obtained a degree of flexibility from within the Community structure that we were led to believe was not possible. The fatstock producers of the United Kingdom are grateful to him for what he has done so far, but he has not succeeded in arranging that a bottom be put under the beef market in the United Kingdom. This is of tremendous importance to fatstock producers in Britain but is more important in Northern Ireland.
The pig industry in the United Kingdom is living on a hand-to-mouth basis and is likely to run into serious trouble once more with the impending rise in the price of cereals.
The eggs and poultry industry is also in a serious position. The cost of producing eggs is now 25p a dozen. Farmers and, producers are receiving 17p a dozen, and are losing a substantial amount of money. All this adds up to lack of confidence, a lowering rate of production, and scarcity of the commodity which will undoubtedly cause prices to rise in the not-too-distant future. I hope that tonight or even tomorrow when the responsible Minister comes to the Dispatch Box he will have something to say about his policy for the future well-being of the agricultural industry throughout the United Kingdom.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). By doing so I wish to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and through him the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the urgent situation facing the gas central heating industry. This is not a one-party affair because on occasions I have been associated with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in joint deputations to Treasury Ministers.
The impact of the new hire-purchase restrictions on the gas central heating industry in my constituency is particularly serious in that it employs 1,000 people in two important firms. In April, May and June of this year orders to one of those firms were down to 61 per cent., 43 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively, compared with orders in April, May and June of 1973. As a result, discussions will take place with the unions on possible redundancies. Already people have been laid off in both firms.
Last year, as a result of the poor housing start situation, business was extremely bad. That was the situation in December last year before the industry received the body blow of the new hire-purchase restrictions. The argument that was used to justify that decision was that the industry was an infant industry and that by December of last year it was thought able to take care of itself. I accept that industries cannot be protected for ever and perhaps there could have been some ground earlier in 1973 for thinking that the gas central heating industry was on its feet. However, the economic argument was applied mechanically and bureaucratically.
In the month before the new hire-purchase restrictions were introduced, hire-purchase and credit sales agreements in the industry were down by 26 per cent. compared with the previous year. In December, the months in which the restrictions were introduced, hire-purchase and credit sales agreements for the first time were down by 31 per cent. compared with the previous year. Even if the industry was no longer an infant it was certainly a sick adolescent. Treasury officials who were alive to the situation should have taken account of that.
Since then construction has not picked up nearly as fast as one would have


hoped. The declining order situation has continued. I had hoped that the representations made by myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and the hon. Member for Bridgwater to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection would have led to a rescinding or some amelioration of the hire-purchase restrictions in the so-called mini-Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced last Monday. However, that did not occur and the industry was not helped in any way. It is not subject to VAT and so it was not helped by the lowering of the VAT rate.
As I have said, in my constituency there are 1,000 people employed in the industry by two firms. Most of them are concentrated in the one town of Belper. That is a small town containing approximately 20,000 people. Therefore, the two firms are major employers in the town. Any further deterioration will deal a devastating blow to employment in Belper. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass on these urgent representations to the Chancellor.
Finally, I make one point about the unhappy wider social implications of the Chancellor's failure to cut the hire-purchase restrictions which were hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. Most better-off people—this is what I am told by the managing directors of the two firms in my constituency—who have been interested in installing central heating have already managed to do so. The industry is now penetrating a new market among less-well-off people. Many people whose housing conditions are often damp, cold and cheerless and who want an uplifting of their social conditions through the introduction of central heating must now, because of the Chancellor's failure to give any alleviation in his mini-Budget to the gas central heating industry, once again look forward to a winter of discontent. I ask my right hon. Friend urgently to pass on the representations made by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before we rise for the Summer Recess will be right hon. Gentleman the Leader

of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a number of statements? This afternoon we had a statement on off-peak electricity. We understand that the Scottish situation, which is quite different, will be dealt with by way of a Written Answer. Similarly, a Bill has been published this afternoon, and is in the Vote Office, dealing with rents in England and Wales. We understand that the Scottish situation relating to that Bill will be dealt with by way of a Written Answer. At a time when we have printing troubles in the House and in instances where the Scottish situation is quite different from the English situation, there should be separate statements. Scottish Members should have the same opportunity to question Ministers as Members who represent other parts of the country.
I believe that we should not adjourn until we have a clear statement from the Government about their pay policy in the event of the social contract breaking down, and particularly during the recess. We have had indications of the most alarming pay claims being submitted in recent days. We have abolished the Pay Board and the Government's precise policy is not clear in the event of a breakdown of the contract. More important, what signs are available to the Government that the TUC is willing to operate a social contract?
My third question—it is vital—is concerned with the EEC referendum. I have a suspicion that a grave fraud is being perpetrated on the electorate in the terms of the pledge that has been given to the British people that they will be able to consider the EEC referendum. The only thing which matters to those who are interested one way or the other is whether the referendum will offer the people an opportunity to express the view that they wish to leave the Common Market.
All the indications that we have had suggest that if there is a referendum it will be one that will offer the people only the choice of whether they approve or disapprove of the renegotiation. If they say "Yes", it can be presumed that the Government will say "All right, we stay in." If they say "No", we can presume that the Government will say "We will go back to the Commission


and try harder next year." Irrespective of the views that we may hold on the Common Market, we are entitled to know whether there will be the genuine offer of a referendum and whether the people will be offered the choice of saying, "Yes" or "No" to membership, as was clearly indicated by the Labour Party in the course of the last election.
Fourth, is the right hon. Gentleman arranging, before we rise for the recess, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on oil platform policy and his policy for oil refineries in Scotland? Many applications for platforms are being submitted and a number of public inquiries are going ahead. Many firms are spending a great deal of money and are considering building oil refineries in various parts of Scotland, yet we have no indication from the Secretary of State or from the Government of their general view on these matters. These are complex issues in which a number of interests have to be considered. It would be helpful to developers and local authorities in Scotland to have some indication of the Government's general policy.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a clear statement on shipbuilding policy? I worked for five years in the industry before coming here, so I have an interest. The situation is virtually impossible at present. The industry is almost unique in Britain in having had to face world competition without tariff protection, and because of labour and other problems it has had more reorganisation, more Government reports and more committee considerations than any other industry. Far too often it has had to face all the problems of reorganisation without getting on with the job of building ships.
Appalling uncertainty again hangs over the industry. The employers are wondering how they can get finance in such conditions, and in Scotland, at least, those who work in the industry, who have seen how nationalisation has led to centralisation, rationalisation, widespread redundancies and large-scale closures, have no idea whether it is being considered for their industry. They do not know whether nationalisation would again end up in centralisation of purchasing or in closure of parts of the industry, just as was done in the steel industry.
I believe that it would be bad for the industry to be nationalised at all, but we should at least be given a Government statement about their future policy for the industry—with which there has been no clear consultation—so that those who work in it can know whether they are able to look forward with confidence to future employment prospects.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This may not be the occasion for party points, but I must say that it is fairly cool of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to criticise the Government's oil policy when one reflects that for some years we had nothing but indecision on this vital issue from the last Government and that the present Government have given already in most sectors of oil policy a series of rational and easily-defensible decisions. This kind of argument has its place, but as the hon. Gentleman had at least the grace to welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to double the regional employment premium at a time when my right hon. Friend was being attacked for it by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps he can be forgiven and acquitted.
I want to raise only one subject—the fact that this is the fifth melancholy anniversary of the British Army in Northern Ireland. I wonder how many of us who sat here on that August afternoon in 1969 thought that we were making a decision to send in troops for anything more than a few months, perhaps a year at the most? Yet here we are, five years later, with a situation which I need hardly describe to the House.
During the Irish debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made great play that at last he would start to phase out internment without trial, and that a number of people now in Long Kesh would be let out on a phased basis. This was greatly welcomed by a number of my hon. Friends and we voted for the Government on that occasion feeling that at least a start had been made.
My understanding is that this policy has allowed only 14 of some 1,600 people out of Long Kesh. The latest information is that, due to recent events, the


policy has been cancelled or at least postponed. Therefore, there should be, before we break up, a statement, perhaps on Tuesday or Wednesday, from the Secretary of State to explain exactly what has happened, because if it so be that the chiefs of staff have had their way—heaven knows, understandably from the point of view of the British Army—and persuaded the Government that it is putting British soldiers under an intolerable strain to find that people are let out of Long Kesh when lives have been risked and an enormous amount of work done to get them there in the first place, then at least the House of Commons deserves a statement and explanation because—and I do not hide it—I would regard this as one other reason why we should look extremely critically and with great scepticism at the whole policy of maintaining, after five long years, the British Army in Ireland.
Finally, for the next inevitable Irish crisis, what is the position about recall? We had a recall in the Whitsun Recess and undoubtedly, in the opinion of some of us, if the present policy continues we shall have the same situation and the same dismal heartbreaks. What is the policy for recall of Parliament to discuss the inevitable difficulties of Northern Ireland?

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Many of the nation's energy problems are completely unresolved, and this is why I believe that we should not rise for the Summer Recess until we get a statement of Government policy about them. Not only that, but the issues themselves have not been debated. For example, a few days ago a Committee upstairs discussed the increased borrowing powers for the National Coal Board, although the board's accounts were not being published until the following day. Coal stocks are at a level which are unlikely to see us through the winter, quite regardless of any industrial action which may be taken.
Again, there is complete lack of information about the pricing policy to be adopted for gas. The comparatively low price of gas and the terms on which it therefore goes to customers gives it an attraction that could place the supplies at risk before we hear the Government's

statement on the Norwegian section of the Frigg field.
Thirdly, the Government seem to believe that oil supplies will continue to flow uninterrupted from the Middle East. Can we be sure? We understand that the Secretary of State for Trade has, by striking an obstructive note in the EEC, set back or destroyed the chances of sensible co-operation within the Community in drawing up contingency plans for the group of 12 nations.

Mr. Neil Marten: Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury) rose—

Mr. Boardman: I am sorry, but I promised to be brief. We have had a Government White Paper about the North Sea explorations. Yet it discloses a quarter-thought-out plan for participation, leaving vast questions unanswered without debate. The future of this great natural resource is left to be speculated about for months while we are in recess.
Fourth, whilst I acknowledge that a decision has been made by the Government about nuclear reactors, that decision has been contested by the industry itself, by the Central Electricity Generating Board as a customer and by the Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation. The decision was taken in the light of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board's report. But the House has not seen that report and we are to go into recess without seeing it.
Finally, we have the sad story of the unresolved problems and lack of debate on electricity supply itself. We read in the Press about the differences between the Government and the industry, differences between forecasts of demand and about the timing and fuelling of the stations required to supply our energy.
These are vitally important decisions which affect the future well-being of the country. To adjourn without fuller statements and fuller debates on these subjects is highly regrettable.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Although I should like to concur in some of the sentiments that have been expressed, particularly from the Government side of the House, I believe that the House ought not to go into recess not so much because I want to complain but because I want to congratulate. I am particularly concerned that my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for Industry should earn the proper congratulations for the decision that he has made in agreeing to a grant of £750,000 and a loan of £4·2 million to the workers at the proposed Meriden co-operative to run the Triumph motor cycle works.
I declare an interest in that I was one of the co-architects of the original scheme. I certainly spent a great deal of time on the scheme in this parliamentary year. I am very glad to see the scheme go forward. I personally believe that it will succeed. I would have wished to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon, first, the form in which he has made the loan available. Reference has been made this afternoon to this matter. The way in which my Written Question was answered this afternoon by my right hon. Friend shows that the conditions and terms attached to that loan underline the fact that he intends to take a very close interest in the progress of the co-operative. This is something to which I wish that we could have had time to refer.
It is also relevant to mention that this is a loan which will make a very substantial contribution to British motor cycle exports. Indeed, it is estimated in the statement made this afternoon that we could have an increase in motor cycle exports to the value of about £10 million a year because of my right hon. Friend's decision. I should have liked to refer to this matter had the House been given more time. But if the House is not to be given more time to discuss this grant, perhaps it is because my right hon. Friend has followed the precedent set by the Minister for Industrial Development in the previous Government, when he gave a grant of £4·8 million to Norton Villiers Triumph in March 1973. Despite the answer given by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the fact was that though the right hon. Gentleman, who was then the Minister, made a statement, we never had a debate in the House. In making the statement this afternoon my right hon. Friend was merely following the precedent set by his predecessor.
I should have liked to refer to the skilled work force that we have at Meriden and to pay tribute to the men who have stayed on the picket line for 24 hours a day since last September, when so

many of them could easily have gone down the road to Coventry and found skilled jobs elsewhere. I should have liked to pay tribute to them this afternoon.
I should have liked to refer also to the guaranteed market which exists for the Triumph motor cycle in the United States. I went to talk to dealers in America last October, and I returned with orders for a substantial number of bikes produced at Meriden. I can make personal testimony to the guaranteed market which exists and will exist for the Triumph co-operative at Meriden. I should also have liked to refer at much greater length to the validity and international reputation and standing of the name "Triumph". This is quite a legend in British motor cycling circles, as it is in world motor cycling circles. That is something else which my right hon. Friend, in coming to his decision, has agreed to perpetuate.
In a much longer debate I should have liked to refer to the example of worker participation which the Meriden project sets out to be. If, when the project is studied in retrospect and when it has been operating for a considerable time, we gain valuable experience of workers having a role in the management of their industries, that again will be as a result of my right hon. Friend's decisions. Because we shall not have the time, as the House will adjourn, I am afraid that the House will be less rich in the experience for which my right hon. Friend has provided in making his grant and loan.
If the House were sitting longer, I should have liked to refer to one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for life, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about the National Health Service. Having once been a member of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for two years, I too can testify to the near disintegration faced throughout the service. We could have wished for a debate on that matter.
Similarly, we could have wished for a debate on some of the problems now facing the installation and manufacturing side of the gas central heating industry.
I said that I would be brief. I believe that the House ought not to go into recess before these subjects are discussed, because the House will be that much less rich for not having discussed them.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I agree with many of the reasons being put forward by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House as to why we should not go into recess. I agree with one of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield). It is, indeed, unfortunate that we cannot at this stage in the Session discuss the decisions taken by the Secretary of State for Industry to pour out substantial sums of taxpayers' money apparently in pursuit of Socialist dogma and apparently against the regard of his own advisory board. It is a pity that there is no time for a debate on that matter.
There is one other matter on which we ought to have a statement before the House adjourns for the recess—a statement which most appropriately would come from the Leader of the House. Therefore, perhaps it is a statement that he can give in answer to the debate. We need a clear explanation from the Government as to the present position in the continuing saga between the Government and the councillors at Clay Cross. We all know full well the unhappy history. We know the clear decision taken by the councillors of Clay Cross deliberately to refuse to implement laws democratically passed by the previous Government. We know the position o the right hon. Gentleman, who, at the Labour Party conference, chose to accept on behalf of the national executive a motion which called upon the Labour Party, after the return of a Labour Government, to refund all the penalties incurred by those councillors. If that were not an encouragement to break the law, it is hard to know what is encouragement to break the law. Indeed, the whole tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was very surprising, coming from a person who is the deputy leader of a party which believes in democratic elections.
We are told that the present Government believe in respect for the law, but it is an odd way to show that respect by giving encouragement to those who have deliberately rejected and refused the laws of a democratically elected Parliament.

Mr. John Tomlinson: What about ratepayers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. These sedentary interruptions merely prolong the proceedings.

Mr. Carlisle: That is particularly so when that encouragement is given to those who are themselves democratically elected members of local authorities. I was very careful throughout the whole rates argument always to advise people that they should continue to pay their rates and to rely on democratic means to change Government policy.
On 4th April the Prime Minister said that no public money was to be spent in recouping the charges against the councillors of Clay Cross, but he said that it was the Government's intention to remove the civil disqualification. That seems an extraordinary way for the present Government to uphold respect for the law, particularly when the councillors had been described as being both determined and wilful in their disobedience of the law.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the present position? We have all read, over the weekend, of a meeting of the Labour Party's Home Affairs Committee attended by several senior Cabinet Ministers. I should like to know whether the recommendation said to have been accepted at that meeting is the policy of the Government and just what it amounts to. Does it amount, as is suggested, to a proposal that if a Labour Government are returned after the forthcoming election they would rescind the penalties imposed on the Clay Cross councillors, without telling the country now that this is their intention? Surely the Labour Party must realise that that would be a complete abuse of their political power. If that is their intention they have a duty to tell the country before the election.
In particular may I be told what was the purpose of passing a resolution saying that the district auditor's solicitor should be informed that the Labour Party did not immediately propose to pay the £7,000 to discharge the indebtedness of the Clay Cross councillors yet recommending that that should not be put into writing? What was the devious purpose behind that, and if that is the intention of the Labour Government, ought that not to be put into writing?


What was meant by saying that this was not their immediate intention?
Is this a proposal merely to play for time so that the Government will be able to sweep the issue under the carpet until after the election and then rescind the penalties imposed? Last Friday the Home Secretary said:
What the law says, even if we don't like it, is what we have to accept until we can change it by constitutional means. No one is entitled to be above the law. If we weaken on that principle, we can say goodbye to democratic Socialism.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with those views and, if so, what is the Government's position with regard to Clay Cross?

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I have no intention of following the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) on the issue of law and order. 1 would say, however, that it would be a good thing if Conservative Members, as well as condemning certain actions with which we are all familiar, condemned people such as Sir Denys Lowson, someone who obtained £5 million and is apparently "thinking" about returning it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if a widow goes to Woolworth's and takes something worth 6p from the counter she is dealt with by the magistrates. We hear of the activities of Lonrho and of someone who was particularly in the public eye in this country paying money into the Cayman Islands. Nothing was said about that by the Conservative Party. Indeed, that person was elevated to the Lords as a consequence. The Conservative Party approved of the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
I do not want to deal with these issues. This has been a short Parliament and I believe that it should be followed by a short recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has said that we should extend the Session to congratulate the Government. I will put the minds of Conservative Members at rest. I do not intend to congratulate the Government because then I would have to make a very long speech. I intend to make only a brief intervention. The achievements of this Government are measured only by the shadow of their deficiencies. I want to deal with some of their deficiences.
The Government have a splendid record. It is rumoured that we are going into an election campaign and may not be returning on 15th October to this Parliament. We are still guessing about the date but it is said that we shall be coming back to a new Parliament with a new Government. I believe that that new Government will be a majority Labour Government.
I have a few words to say about the defence review. As a party we said that we would look at the nation's defence expenditure. It is a burden which we cannot afford to carry. When we came into power in March we inherited a £4,000 million deficit. There are some European countries with an embarrassing financial surplus. Yet they are not spending as much on defence as we are. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. [Interruption.] I think it can be proved that Britain is making a contribution—bearing in mind her GNP—higher than that of other European countries. I know that the Government are working on the defence review. My right hon. Friend is answering defence Questions tomorrow. He may be able to tell us something.
I hope that in the very near future we can have a statement from the Government saying that they are cutting back on some of our commitments and that we are to allocate to defence only what we can afford. I hope it will be said that as long as there are crying needs in other areas we shall not give defence the sort of priority given to it by the Conservative Party.
I come to foreign policy. I know that the Foreign Secretary has been working hard and long with renegotiations in the Common Market. We have heard about the absurdities there—the butter mountain, followed by the meat iceberg. I realise that the Cyprus issue has meant more work for my right hon. Friend in seeking to bring about a settlement. There has been the hope on this side of the House that we would have a review of Southern Africa because developments in that part of the world are moving rapidly.
The new President of Portugal, General Spinola, said this weekend that the territories of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau are soon to have independence. There is no doubt that this will have a major effect on Namibia and


Rhodesia. As a party we have put forward a progressive and clear-sighted view on these issues, bringing us into line with the rest of the world. The former Prime Minister was out on a limb when he went to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Singapore, because of the rôle of the Conservative Party in these matters. The rest of the Commonwealth disagreed with what he said.
As a party we can follow the line taken at the United Nations. The Commonwealth countries have asked us to pursue our policies on Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa. The International Court of Justice has said that the Namibian régime is illegal. We have said this as a party and we should say it as a Government.
A farce of an election is taking place in Rhodesia tomorrow. Those who are allowed to vote are almost exclusively white people. Very few of the African people will be able to participate in that election. There should be a statement about our attitude.
The Chancellor has issued his mini-Budget and we welcome what he has done, as far as it goes. We in Wales particularly welcome his announcement about the regional employment premium. That will help to maintain full employment. We welcome the action taken to ease the rating burden and to reduce VAT. We congratulate the Chancellor on what he has done and realise that he had a terrible economic inheritance. The enormous surplus which the Labour Government handed to the last Conservative Government was transformed into an enormous deficit.
What we want from my right hon. Friend are some proposals to restore the public expenditure cuts made by the last Government. We have not dealt with the problem of parents with large families. The Government can help these people through the family allowance system.
I turn to a point which concerns us in Wales very much. We have had the Kilbrandon Report and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be responsible for gathering information on it and reactions to it from Wales and Scotland. We are very disturbed about the proposals on separatism. We recognise that Kilbrandon rejected those pro-

posals. We realise that there is a need to devolve certain powers from Westminster to Wales and Scotland, but we should maintain the unity of the British Isles and I hope that recommendations will be made which will be accepted by the people of Wales and Scotland as well as by the people of England.
I hope that we shall soon have a majority Labour Government.

6.21 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I consider that the House should not adjourn until it has debated the Strategic Plan for the North-West. As the Leader of the House knows very well, I have been trying since early May to persuade him to provide time for a debate on it, but though he promised me on 23rd May that he would see what he could do later this summer he has, I regret to say, done precisely nothing. That is a great pity, because the plan is of vital significance to the North-West and could, if adopted, have very damaging effects on the areas of the North-West outside the Mersey belt which it favours. This enormous tome, which contains 328 pages, 49 graphs and maps and 53 tables and weighs nearly 3 lb., does well in calling attention to the needs of our region, but it dismisses Lancaster in a few brief lines. Yet there are implications for my area on every one of its pages.
In his Press conference on the document on 6th May, Sir William Mather, Chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council—admittedly a tireless worker for the region—stated:
The North-West 2000 makes a powerful case for a dramatic redistribution of national resources in favour of the North-West.
So it does, and I am fully in favour of it, but with respect to Sir William this is only part of the story. It certainly makes a case for a greater share of the national wealth to be redistributed in the North-West, which is long overdue, although since 1970 our share of the national cake has been improving steadily. But we still have a long way to go, particularly in replacing our old schools.
The plan goes on—and this is a great mistake in the plan, in my view—to preempt virtually the whole of the improvement asked for in the Mersey belt area, which would include Greater Manchester and Oldham, with what are described as


"finger developments" stretching east from Merseyside and north from Manchester.
In a brief reference to the prospects for Lancaster, the plan states on page 284:
Future growth will depend largely upon jobs but it is not only future growth but present well-being which depends on the availability of a wide variety of job opportunities for men and women of all ages and interests.
In the past we have suffered from a steady migration of our young people precisely because such variety was not available. They have left us to seek a future elsewhere.
Recently, largely by our own efforts but aided by the granting of intermediate area status and by the Industry Act—which the Director of the North-West Industrial Development Association recently described as the best package deal the North-West had ever had—we have managed to attract to the area a wide variety of firms, many of them small and highly specialised but capable of steady growth, and also some larger firms. For this we thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who did a great deal to assist us in our efforts.
However, while a great deal of our success has depended on our own efforts to put across to industry generally the highly attractive environmental and educational conditions we can offer, it has also depended on the absence of bias against us which the grant of intermediate status conferred. The strategic plan would not only restore the bias from which we suffered but would intensify it. Moreover it would be aggravated by recent Government measures, the cumulative effect of which would make our future very hazardous indeed.
We in Lancaster have bitter memories of what can happen when other parts of the country are made financially more attractive to industry than our part. We have only recently recovered from the blow which employment prospects suffered when part of one of our most important factories was attracted to a development area by the actions of the previous Labour Government. We can certainly hold our own and attract and retain industry if we are treated equally with other areas, but we cannot do so if

the scales are being constantly weighted against us.
That is why we greeted with delight the Conservative Government's pledge to phase out the regional employment premium, which gives help only to development areas and special development areas and not to intermediate areas such as ours. That is why I have fought so hard to try to persuade the present Government not to reintroduce this wholly unfair premium. Alas, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has doubled it. A number of firms are considering whether to come to our area. I sincerely hope that the attractions we can offer and the help and co-operation we give to our existing firms and will give to those thinking of coming to our area will persuade them to come.
However, even more serious for us is the Government's attitude to the granting of industrial development certificates. Under the Conservative Government the granting of certificates to intermediate areas was merely a formality, but on 18th July the Department of Industry announced significant changes in the operation of IDC control. I wrote immediately to the Minister to protest and in a letter dated 23rd July—and I objected to this letter at Question Time today—the Minister of State confirmed that in future incoming firms might have to show that they could not reasonably be expected to go to a special development area or to a development area. That is a serious blow to the intermediate areas, including mine.
Moreover, other Government Departments are being less than fair to us. The new Lancashire County Council, of which we are part, has received a disastrously small allocation from the Department of Education and Science—a mere £900,000, half the amount for comparable areas—despite the fact that our education expenditure is already below the national average. All this makes more difficult our task of making and keeping our part of Lancashire attractive.
British Rail announced only last Wednesday that it is to withdraw the Heysham-Belfast passenger and car ferry services, with consequent redundancies affecting both seafaring and shore-based staff. This is a decision which we shall oppose. My hon. Friend the Member for


Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and myself are seeing the Minister about this matter on Thursday.
All this is happening at a time when unemployment in our area is again on an upward trend. It is no less than 25 per cent. up on July of last year, having taken a leap over the June figures, which is most unusual in an area with a strong holiday trade. The figure is now 3·6 per cent. We in Lancashire appreciate the environmental problems of Merseyside but we do not believe that, although it should have help with the environment, it should scoop the industrial pool.
I therefore say to the Minister that we should not adjourn until we have had the chance thoroughly to debate these matters.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with hon. Members who have referred to major issues on which we have not had debates. It is the greatest pity that we have not debated family allowances and their greater effectiveness in dealing with poverty than direct consumer food subsidies. Similarly we should have had a debate on devolution. I remind fellow Celts in the Chamber that there is another Celtic part of the country which has an interest in devolution, and that is Cornwall.
I wish to refer to some matters which have been dealt with in the fag end of the Session but which have been dealt with inadequately. Last Wednesday evening we were faced with about 100 Lords amendments which we had not seen before. We had no guidance as to which were and which were not Government amendments and what consideration had been given to them in the other place, because no OFFICIAL REPORT was available. The shambles that resulted on Wednesday were such that Mr. Speaker had to suspend the sitting. After the suspension the Leader of the House openly and honestly admitted that mistakes had been made. We were all grateful to him for suggesting that the debate should be resumed next day.
Hon. Members who attended next day, having waded through a pile of Lords amendments one and a half inches thick, were greeted with an equally confused situation when they attempted with inade-

quate assistance from the Order Paper to deal with the complicated provisions of the Housing Bill. According to an authoritative letter in The Times this morning from a noble Lord, at least some of the amendments which we passed on Thursday—and might have passed "on the nod" on Wednesday—are totally inadequate in law and have no legal substance.
On Friday of last week such was the pressure of time that we had to take the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill followed by Report stage and Third Reading, with the result that the debate went on into the evening. There were some Divisions in the afternoon in which the grand total of hon. Members who voted on the vital issue of safety belts in cars was 68. We are giving ourselves an extra day's holiday, yet we are cantering through legislation and leaving it in a considerable mess.
I do not wish only to look backward. Looking forward, tomorrow we are to be given the opportunity of taking the Report stage and Third Reading of the Rent Bill. As a member of the Standing Committee on the Rent Bill, I assure hon. Members who may not have studied it that it is a complicated and enormously important piece of legislation. Consideration of that Bill is to follow a long debate on a different measure, with the result that the debate will be crammed into the tail end of an evening at the fag end of Parliament. If we could have one more day to deal properly with the Rent Bill and proceed with a little less haste, we should do ourselves more justice in considering this important legislation. The Adjournment motion before us gives us one more day for the recess than we had dared to hope for. I believe that most hon. Members would willingly sacrifice that extra day to do justice to legislation that affects landlords and tenants throughout the land.
We have all been conscious with the late sittings of the last few weeks of the considerable strain that has been put on the Chair and on Ministers. We may possibly have made some slips. If there is a vote on the motion, I shall certainly vote against it. It would be totally improper for the House to adjourn before the major issues referred to by hon. Members have been dealt with and leaving three major pieces of household


legislation in a state of which none of us can be proud.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Unlike the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) I do not necessarily hope that the motion will be defeated, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a statement on negotiations with the EEC before the House rises.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) made an eloquent plea for the industry of Lancaster. She perhaps does not realise that there are parts of London from which industry has been rapidly disappearing during the last few years, particularly the Thames-side area which I represent. In that area 3,000 workers are involved in the sugar industry. One reason for the current difficulties of the sugar industry is the change from the British system of support and market management of sugar to the EEC system. The EEC system causes large quantities of European beet sugar to be dumped on world markets and causes difficulties for the very world producers that the EEC wishes to help. This mismanaged European sugar market provides plenty of loopholes for the use of public money. On the other hand we are seeing the end of our own properlymanaged sugar market which benefits both the British consumer and the Commonwealth producer.
The Guardian, which last Friday berated the Commonwealth producers for not providing under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement the amount of sugar we expected, failed to mention that the agreement will be terminated at the end of this year. One reason for the shortage of sugar is that Commonwealth producers are not providing what they were expected to provide because their guaranteed market will be terminated at the end of this year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced last Thursday that he had been unable to gain in Brussels a guarantee from the Common Market Ministers that 1·4 million tons of sugar would be imported into the EEC. It has been reported in the Press that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has secured such a guarantee at the Kingston,

Jamaica, conference. However, I under stand that that is not so. The matter is still to be discussed. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade had no guarantee from the EEC that the matter would be discussed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development had an indication that the matter would not be swept away entirely.
There is not guarantee as yet. Without adequate imports of sugar from the Commonwealth or some other source, the 3,000 persons in my constituency whose jobs depend upon the refining of sugar are under threat. Their jobs may also be in peril because if the alternative is adopted of growing more beet sugar here, that sugar will be refined not in my constituency but elsewhere. It is ridiculous that the existing refining machinery should not be used to help Commonwealth producers, to provide employment in an area which has suffered a draining away of job opportunities and to maintain a good supply of sugar at a reasonable price for the British housewife. All that is under jeopardy because of our EEC connections.
If the Leader of the House cannot guarantee a debate between now and the end of the Session, will he arrange for a statement to be made by one of the Ministers involved before the rising of the House on Wednesday?

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall not take up the point made about sugar by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), much as I should like to do so, since time does not allow me to deal with that matter. I should, however, like to turn to two other points.
We have heard many requests today for statements and debates, and if they were all met they would undoubtedly occupy the whole of the period of the recess. However, I wish to add to the list by making a request for two more statements. First, I should like the Government to make a statement on rates in local government, and secondly I should like to have a statement on the beef situation.
On 27th June the House took the advice of the Opposition and passed a


resolution which, among other things, insisted that the Government should introduce an interim form of rate relief. In consequence of that resolution, last Monday the Chancellor announced in the mini-Budget his intention to introduce rate relief. However, we read in this morning's newspaper that the country has been dismayed to learn that the Department of the Environment has been told by local government that it is extremely unlikely that it will be able to operate the Chancellor's rate relief system by 1st October. This throws up an extremely serious situation. Apparently the sums involved in the Chancellor's statement are so complex that they cannot be worked out by computer but will have to be done by hand. This will involve a considerable amount of time. Furthermore, it is thought that in some areas the relief announced by the Chancellor might not match the administrative cost.
It is an incredible situation if the Government, having announced rate reliefs, produce a system which is so complicated that in the first instance will be difficult to calculate and secondly will be extremely costly. If the Government cannot clarify the situation, it is likely that some local authorities will add considerably to their total expenditure. The burden will have to be borne by the ratepayers in the current year or be carried forward to next year. Already great alarm is being expressed about the total of local government expenditure for next year, given the current rate of inflation, It is important that a statement should be made giving the Government's view.
Last week the Secretary of State for the Environment was reported as telling the Associations of County Councils that next year local authorities would have to cut their spending. If a greater burden is to be placed on them this year and there are to be cuts next year, where is the money to come from to enable them to carry out the services expected of them? The chairman of the ACC's finance committee said that unless the Exchequer bore a greater burden of local government expenditure, next year there would be either a large increase in rates or a reduction in services. I hope we shall hear something constructive from the Leader of the House when he replies to the debate or, alternatively, that we

shall have a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment within the next two days.
I turn to the second matter which I wish to put to the Leader of the House. It is well known that the livestock sector is in considerable disarray. On 26th June the Minister gave an undertaking that beef producers were to receive a minimum return of £18 per cwt. It now transpires that that figure will not necessarily be reached.
Last week I tabled a Question to the Minister asking how he
…intends to ensure that beef producers receive a minimum return of £18 per cwt., and why the return is not made up to that figure after the addition of the premia announced on 17th July.
The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the Government
are satisfied that the scheme which was announced then should ensure returns of about £18 per cwt. for clean cattle over the period of its operation. If producers respond to the assurance which these premia provide, average returns over the period until March should substantially exceed this figure.
That may or not be wishful thinking.
Contrary to the belief expressed by the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West), there is no bottom in the beef market and there is no guarantee that farmers will receive £18 a cwt. We must have clarification of this from the Minister of Agriculture before the House rises for the recess. I hope that we shall be given replies on these points.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have sympathy for the Leader of the House in this debate. I have some past experience of these debates since I was once PPS to a distinguished former Leader of the House and on two occasions I had to sit behind him during an Adjournment debate and take note of the many problems and queries raised.
This has been a unique and interesting debate. First, it is good to see the Liberal Party stating that it is against the House adjourning. Having taken up the position they did last Friday, when they voted in both Lobbies, it is reasonable to conclude that the Liberals are in greater need of the recess than other hon. Members and are showing mental if not physical fatigue.
Certainly for the Leader of the House this must have been a uniquely difficult House of Commons when one bears in mind the problems of a minority Government in piloting legislation. Therefore, although we may disagree with much that has been achieved—and we may also take the view that there are many issues still to be dealt with—I am sure we would not disagree that the right hon. Gentleman needs a holiday. It will be our intention to see that that holiday is much longer than he anticipates.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, quite apart from the political overtones of the use of the Industry Act and the recent moves over the Triumph factory at Meriden, will carefully consider the importance of making a parliamentary statement on this topic. I appreciate that under the Act—an Act for which I was partly responsible—there is no need for parliamentary approval for a loan of less than £5 million. However, when advice given by experts appointed by Parliament runs contrary to the Minister's advice, when the loan concerned is almost at the figure of £5 million but not quite, and when the Act of Parliament is used in a different way from that originally intended, it is vital that a statement should be made to the House of Commons. This is most relevant on the question of the relationship between Government and Members of Parliament, and it must be right for these matters to be debated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least convey this strong view to his colleagues in the Government.
I should like to make one other remark which is directed at the Secretary of State for Industry. I refer to the way in which the Concorde announcement was made in Paris and not in London and the fact that the House of Commons has been told nothing of the details. We well remember that it was the Secretary of State for Industry who claimed that he would bring Concorde into open government and would see that all the facts and figures were known—in contrast, he said, to the way in which these matters were dealt with by his predecessor. What has happened, however, is that the Secretary of State has looked at the facts and figures and has given none of them to the House of Commons. Therefore, far from the right hon. Gentleman following up his idea of open government, his

actions have led to a system in which government has become firmly closed. We hope that this will be remedied in the fading days of this Session.
What is also of immense importance before we adjourn are the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about the anxiety on both sides of the House over Cyprus. We recognise that the Foreign Secretary is working extremely hard under difficult conditions, and both sides wish him success in his discussions and negotiations. But naturally we expect that someone from the Government benches will make a full statement dealing with the matters raised by my right hon. and learned Friend about the safety of the many British subjects still on that island.
We listened with alarm to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman) about our present energy supplies. My hon. Friend has considerable ministerial experience of these matters. For him to warn the House and, through the House, the country about the condition of our coal stocks and the potential dangers to our oil stocks in this period prior to the winter will cause general concern, and it would be appropriate if the Secretary of State for Energy made the exact position far more clear.
As for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise the very real concern that today's announcement that rate relief may not be paid on time will bring to many people up and down the country. Speaking as one whose constituents have had their rates increased by 87 per cent., quite a large part of the increase being due to the decision by the new Secretary of State for the Environment to change the domestic rate subsidy, I recognise the real hardship that this is causing.
It was bad enough that when we debated rates the Secretary of State told us that he intended to do nothing about them this year and proposed merely to set up an inquiry. It was not until three weeks later after a defeat in the House of Commons that he decided to take action. Many people will think that the action was too little. Certainly it was too late. But now to hear that, due to administrative difficulties, it may be even


later than expected will cause real anxiety. I hope that before we go into recess the Secretary of State will be able to make an announcement reassuring the public about this matter.
There are a number of subjects which must cause the country and this House considerable concern if this week we are to go into recess. I ask the Leader of the House especially to give us some indication of how the Government view the likely trend and success of the social compact and the wages policy in the months during which we shall be in recess.
The whole country will have been a little alarmed—certainly that part which reads the Sun—at the manner in which today it published a special supplement on the current situation following the end of the Pay Board. It listed some 10 major unions, all of which currently have claims. The lowest of them is 14 per cent., the next lowest is 25 per cent. and the highest is 75 per ecnt. When 10 major unions are concerned to demand increases of the type set out in that report, they must raise real questions for the Government. Are these the levels which they anticipated when they entered the social compact with the unions? Are they the sort of increases which they think reasonable in the general fight against inflation? If increases of this sort come to fruition, what action will they take and how quickly will they take it?
In the 14 years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House, I cannot remember the House going into the Summer Recess with so much total uncertainty. It is unique that there is the suggestion that we shall go into recess and then straight into a General Election. It is unique because Cabinet Ministers have been responsible for giving us views about how quickly the election will take place. I cannot remember that happening before. Normally that is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. We have had all sorts of suggestions from different Cabinet Ministers generally creating an impending electioneering atmosphere. As a result we may undergo the unique experience of going into recess with every anticipation that there will be a General Election.
What makes the Opposition very suspicious is the number of major Government policies which are to be announced during the recess. We must ask ourselves why a Government so proud of their policies and anxious to defend them do not want the forum of Parliament in which to debate them. What concerns me even more is that after a meeting last week of the Labour Party Manifesto Committee, consisting of the Cabinet and the Labour Party Executive, the Prime Minister said that a great deal of the basis of the Labour manifesto would be the White Papers which the Government intended to publish in the coming weeks. This is almost using the Government machine as a Transport House publication department for electioneering purposes.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the White Papers which the Government have decided to leave to the recess. Obviously there is the White Paper on industry. That is a matter of great controversy about which the battle rages both in the Labour Party and outside it. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary's speech at the weekend was addressed to it. The Government have decided that this major White Paper, which is to be the basis of their futute industrial policy, will not be published now, although the Secretary of State for Industry announced in May that he was nearly ready with his plans. Here we are entering August, and still not a word is being published. We suspect that it is being kept for the recess because the Labour Government do not want this White Paper debated in Parliament.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the latest rumour—that not only is the matter being kept for the recess but that the Government are now not likely to publish a White Paper at all?

Mr. Walker: Doubtless the Leader of the House will comment on that. But to leave it to the recess so that Parliament has no opportunity to debate it is a thoroughly bad decision.
Added to that, we have the massive uncertainty that it causes in industry. Today the Secretary of State for Industry, in his characteristic anti-free enterprise manner, published in reply to a Question from one of his hon. Friends his analysis


of how 10 of the biggest free enterprise companies had received £165 million from the Government during the past four years. The right hon. Gentleman's reply is written in terms which in no way spell out that the great bulk of that money came because the Labour Government had investment grants instead of investment allowances. It does not spell out how much of the money was in terms of regional development. Instead the right hon. Gentleman continues to give the impression that the firms concerned received that £165 million as some form of handout. That is totally bad for the confidence and the investment prospects of those firms.
What is interesting is that one of my hon. Friends who asked a Question, fortunately also today, about the nationalised industries discovered that in the same four years they received not £165 million but £1,186 million—seven times as much—not as a handout but as investment grants for productive capacity which the Government and the nation require. All this is bad for industry. It causes great uncertainty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, the total uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry is an illustration of the adverse effects of this.
We still do not have the consultative paper on the wealth tax that we were promised. Here again there is total uncertainty for investment and the possible inflow of money from other nations. The Government claim their success in borrowing a substantial sum from Iran. I was at one time involved in many talks which took place with that country. Countries like Iran could invest substantial sums for the benefit of jobs and employment in this country, but they are unlikely to do so when there is the dual menace of nationalisation and of a potential wealth tax of which the Government have not yet published details.
The position about Europe is uncertain. We are no longer certain where the Government's views on Europe lie. We know that there was a period when they were strongly against our admission to the European Economic Community. We know that certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are still strongly against it and that a lot of the Cabinet are still

strongly against it. The position is not clear.
I believe that the Government should make some of these fundamental issues clear before the House goes into recess, They could do it quite easily. They could have a statement on Europe. If they were in favour of Europe, they could get the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to make it. If they were against, they could get the Secretary of State for Trade to make it.
The Government could have a state anent on the future of free enterprise. If they were for free enterprise, they could get the Home Secretary to make the statement. If they were against free enterprise, they could get the Secretary of State for Industry to make it.
Perhaps we could have a statement on Clay Cross and the rule of law. If the Government were for the rule of law, no doubt the Secretary of State for Education and Science could make the statement. If they were in favour of the law being made subordinate to unions, the Secretary of State for Employment could make it.
The Government have a choice. The country wants to know on which side the Government stand on these issues instead of being presented with terrible uncertainties. The reality is that on some of the most fundamental issues Parliament is going into recess with the Government's attitude on major questions—industry, Europe, taxation—totally uncertain.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said he hoped that in the next few days there would be a statement on the defence review. I agree with him, though for different reasons. The hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that we have had uncertainty for a considerable period. When the present Government came in they immediately announced that they were to undertake a defence review. Now, six months later, we have no indication about it at all. We have certain hopeful indications. We had the nuclear tests. But we have had suggestions, particularly by back-bench Members on the Government side, urging the implementation of the motion put down by the Parliamentary Labour Party in January, signed by over 100 Members, including 26 Ministers, recommending immediate cuts


of over £1,000 million in defence spending.
It staggers me that with the events that have taken place recently in Cyprus the Government should be so complacent about defence. We have a situation in which, doubtless on the instructions of the Government, our ambassador at the United Nations has made clear his immense hostility to the way the Soviet Union is acting regarding Cyprus. British lives have been saved by the presence in the Mediterranean of the Royal Navy with the type of vessel which would certainly be endangered if we had a review which brought about the cuts that Labour Members have in mind. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, when the Soviet Union is increasing its armaments at a fast pace this is not the time for slashing our insurance premium for the future.
There is no doubt that the last five months have created considerable uncertainty in the Services and in the many industries which provide for our defence and the procurement programmes of our defence forces. This must be bad for both industry and the forces. Again, the Government should make a clear statement before the House goes into recess.
Parliament is going into recess at a time when, on the basic issues, the Government have not made clear what is to happen. In the fight against inflation we do not know what will happen if the predicted claims outlined in the Sun materialise. The position on Europe is uncertain. The position about defence is unknown. The position about nationalisation or free enterprise is totally uncertain with seemingly the left wing of the Labour Party predominating. This is an unhappy moment for Parliament to go into recess. The only advantage that can be seen is that this might be the last occasion we go into recess with the Labour Party occupying the Government side of the House.

7.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I agree with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) that this has been an extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. I will try to reply to all the major points that have been put to me.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to Meriden and the new Scottish newspaper. Other hon. Members also referred to those two matters. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had ignored the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board. The facts are that the board considered the proposed assistance for the Scottish Daily Express and concluded that the scheme was not commercially viable. The Government have taken this point into account in the conditions attaching to the offer, the details of which I want to give to the House, but they have decided that the special skills of the work force and the employment created for them through the offer of assistance justified the offer.
The terms attaching to the Government's offer take account of the views of the board. The Government have attached terms and conditions to the offer which I wish to place on record: first, that 50 per cent. of the project's total funds must come from non-Government sources and that the advice of the board should be made known to those sources—the board's advice will therefore be taken into account not only by the Government but by all concerned; secondly, that before commitment by the Government there should have been subscription of £475,000 or equivalent; thirdly, that £500,000 should be subscribed in the form of equity for longterm unsecured debt from the public; fourthly, that any secured loan should rank pari passu with any Government loan; fifthly, that the Government's position as a secured lender should be recognised by all involved, including the work force; and, finally, that it should be made clear to all concerned that no further Government finance would be forthcoming.
The board also considered the Meriden co-operative. It welcomed the project as constructive and meriting sympathy and encouragement as a means of dealing with the deadlock. Although the majority of the board concluded that the proposition would not be commercially viable, nevertheless the Government believe that this view must be weighed against the positive national benefits that may accrue. A buoyant world market and a very small British share give the co-operative a national importance. Therefore, the


Government are prepared in principle to make an offer not exceeding £4·95 million to enable the co-operative to be formed.
The right hon. Member for Worcester and other hon. Members raised the question of discussion of this matter in the House or of its being reported to the House. He said, quite rightly, that the law does not require anything under £5 million to be brought to the House. Nevertheless, I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the points that he and other hon. Members have made on this matter.

Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the rate of interest on the loan?

Mr. Short: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) put down an amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, did not call. He wanted the House not to rise until 15th August. He expressed yet again his concern about the health service, devolution, the working hours of Parliament and our procedures. These are extremely important issues.
The important point about the length of recesses is that a Member of Parliament has two jobs. He has a job here at Westminster and a very important job in his constituency. I believe, after 23 years here, that the recesses give Members of Parliament opportunities to keep up to date with their constituencies.
My hon. Friend raised once more, as he did at Question Time, the matter of the working hours of Parliament. I believe that this is a matter which should be considered in the autumn. He raised also, finally, the question of agricultural tied cottages. I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but did not succeed. I feel sure that, if he had done so, he would have wished to talk about that question. My hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met representatives of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the Transport and General Worker's Union last month to discuss this topic, and the Ministers will be contacting union representatives as soon as possible with broad

details of the Government's proposals for legislation.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised the questions of the health service and of Concorde. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be making a statement on Concorde this week. I think it is right that he should do so. I have asked him to do so and he has agreed.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the defence review and said that the proposals in the White Paper will reduce our influence in the world. I do not know how he knows that. The White Paper has not yet been published. It will not be published until the autumn. Certainly the Labour Government would never introduce defence proposals which reduced our influence in the world or our defence capability in the world.

Mr. Peter Walker: I raised previously with the Secretary of State for Defence the question whether, if during August he is to negotiate with our NATO allies as to his current findings, he will perhaps publish some form of White Paper to show the country. Has that question been considered?

Mr. Short: I do not think that has been considered. The White Paper will not be published until the autumn, but obviously there must be some discussions with NATO countries before it is published. I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is not here now—he sent me a note apologising; he said that he probably would be absent—raised the question of education in his constituency. There is a shortage of teachers in London. There is not an overall shortage in the country—indeed, the number of teachers is just about right. This September the teacher force will increase by 20,000 so the situation should be very much easier.
In the face of this we have tried to attract teachers to London and other areas of this kind by greatly increasing the educational priority area allowance. We have set up an inquiry into teachers' pay in addition to granting an increase of 8


per cent. on 1st April, and negotiations are proceeding on the London weighting.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of answering letters. I deeply regret and am always angered by ministerial delay in answering letters. If any hon. Member experiences difficulty over this matter, perhaps he will let me know.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) raised the question of the National Dock Labour Scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made a statement on 15th July and promised consultations with the industry on the draft of the order to extend the dock labour scheme. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House on that occasion. Any objection to the draft order will, as required by the Act, be considered by a statutory inquiry. The order is subject to negative resolution and Parliament will then have an opportunity to debate its merits or otherwise. I therefore do not see the need for a debate at this stage, but I will certainly consider the possibility when the necessary consultations, including consultation with the smaller ports, have been carried out and the statutory inquiry has reported.
The Government's policy on nationalisation of the ports is quite clear. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said on 6th May to the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry):
It is the Government's intention to bring all commercial ports and cargo handling activities into public ownership and control, and I propose to consult those concerned about the form and scope of the necessary legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May 1974; Vol. 873 c. 383.]
Since this is already Government policy, I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should think that back-door nationalisation was necessary.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no action by the Government on the extension of the dock labour scheme before we have a full-scale debate in the House?

Mr. Short: I have talked about the opportunities for debating the matter in the House. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend has made an important statement of policy. Will he confirm that there is no intention that trust ports and municipally-owned ports will be left out of the overall scheme of nationalisation of the ports?

Mr. Short: I should not like to go any further than what I have said. The statement on 15th July laid down the policy. I am not making a policy statement today. I am simply repeating what my hon. right Friend said on that occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised the question of social beef. There have been reports in the Press about substantial sales of beef from intervention stores in France to Eastern European countries including Russia. My right hon. Friend asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was aware of this. Of course my right hon. Friend was aware of it.
I should like to make it quite clear that there are no special Community deals to sell frozen poor-quality beef to Russia at exceptionally low prices. We are not dealing with a repetition of the frozen butter situation which hon. Members opposite allowed to develop when they were in government. What appears to have happened is that large-scale commercial transactions to sell beef from intervention stores have been arranged, taking advantage of the normal Community subsidies for export of stock surplus to Community requirements. My right hon. Friend asked specifically about this.
No special directive or regulation is needed, nor is a decision of the Council of Ministers called for. Much of the beef currently in intervention stores is of poor quality, I am told, and very difficult to sell in Community markets. It is not the kind of beef that would be wanted by British consumers. There is no evidence that the sales that have taken place are anything other than normal commercial trading.

Mr. Jay: Although we can understand that when this beef has spent several months in storage it may be of rather poorer quality than when it went in, nevertheless does my right hon. Friend confirm that so much of it as has found


its way to Soviet Russia is sold at the normal subsidised export price, which is a good deal lower than the price charged within the EEC.

Mr. Short: I have already answered that point.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked about Cyprus and the problem of British citizens, especially in the Kyrenia area. I cannot give any information about that this evening, but I will certainly pass this on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he returns.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will there, then, be a full statement on Cyprus tomorrow?

Mr. Short: I am not sure about tomorrow, but I will certainly ensure that a statement is made before the House rises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is still in Geneva. I am sure that he will wish to make a statement to the House on the progress made during the talks and on the kind of matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I appreciate the difficulties and preoccupations of the Secretary of State himself on the wider aspect of the tripartite talks which are going on. On this somewhat narrower and more immediate aspect with which I am concerned, which is the safety and well-being of the British citizens resident in Cyprus, if we cannot have a statement from the Secretary of State himself, perhaps the Minister of State, who I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench, will be able to make one on this aspect in any event.

Mr. Short: I will certainly see that a statement of some kind is made. I could of course have got some information for the House tonight, but on a matter of this kind which involves families in this country I thought it much better not to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I have said, is still in Geneva.
The immediate objective of the talks was to devise effective measures to reinforce the cease-fire and to consider how the wider problems raised by this tragic

dispute will be tackled. All sides there have conducted the talks in a statesmanlike and responsible way, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to recognise the major contribution my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made.
On the cease-fire the latest information we have is that the fighting on the land has virtually ceased. The newly reinforced United Nations Command is watching the situation very closely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) mentioned hare coursing. I confirm what I said in the House on Thursday—that the Government have adopted this matter as a Government measure and it will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend also raised, as did my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), the credit control order passed by the previous Government restricting purchase of central heating equipment. The Government carefully considered the points raised by my hon. Friend prior to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22nd July. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General wrote to my hon. Friend on 22nd July assuring him that his representations had been taken into account, but stating that there was a limit to the action which the Chancellor could take.
In the circumstances the Chancellor did not feel it would be right to relax consumer credit restrictions. He particularly wanted to avoid action that would be an overstimulus to consumer demand, but actions that the Chancellor has taken will be of some assistance to industry generally. Help for house building includes the £500 million loan to the building societies, and this should help the central heating industry. The difference between now and 1968, when central heating was exempted from hire-purchase control, is that it was then an infant industry and it is now a well-established industry—

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon Friend take on board the concern about unemployment and short-time working in this industry? This credit restriction does not help the Government's policy of modernising houses. I ask my right hon. Friend to have another word with my


right hon. Friends the Paymaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Short: I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what my hon. Friend says, but, as I have pointed out, there is a difference between the state of the industry in 1968 and its present state.
The right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) spoke about the continuing tragedy of Northern Ireland, which we all regret. The Government have taken a new initiative and we hope that in the longer term it will result in a much more peaceful Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a question about beef, as did the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). The Government recognise the current problems of beef producers and substantial assistance is to be given to them. With the calf subsidy grant doubled from 1st July, direct aid to producers has now been increased to about £100 million a year. A number of other measures have recently been taken to strengthen the beef market, including a new system of head-age payments on cattle ready for slaughter to apply over the autumn and winter. This will sustain producer returns and provide incentives for orderly marketing without increasing prices to the consumer. The scheme will mean an additional injection of up to £40 million in the next few months.
The figure of £18 per cwt. has also been mentioned and it has been said that a number of farmers have not received this. I have been able to make only a hurried inquiry and I understand that this is not the case—that there is nothing in the allegation. However, I will look into the matter and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to write to those hon. Gentlemen who are concerned with this matter.
The hon. Member for Belper spoke about two factories in his constituency and I will pass on his points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Tom King: A point raised by the hon. Member for Belper is similar to a point which concerns me and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). We have been promised a definitive statement by the Secretary of State. Are we to take it that the an-

nouncement he has made is in place of the definitive statement, or will there be a statement or a Written Answer before the House rises?

Mr. Short: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had been promised a definitive statement, but I will inquire into this and let him know the position before the House rises.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of matters which he would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to look into before the recess. All I can do is to pass on these matters to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the substantial question of the social contract, as did the right hon. Member for Worcester. He asked what will be our policy if the social contract breaks down. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has frequently referred to the vital importance of avoiding a wages explosion when statutory controls are removed. He has referred to this over and over again both in the House and outside. This can be achieved only if all those concerned recognise that, as the TUC has said, the scope for real increases is limited and that the main objective is the maintenance of real incomes. All negotiators should strive to settle on terms which are clearly within the TUC guidelines. Ideally we would want all to succeed, but—let us face it—it would be unrealistic to suppose that there could be success in every case. The transition to a voluntary system is bound to involve some exceptionally difficult cases. That is inevitable when a statutory system ends.
Bearing in mind the anomalies and unfairnesses which are inseparable from a statutory system, it is inevitable that in some cases in which there are strong feelings corrective action may be unavoidable, but such cases must be kept to an absolute minimum.
The Government cannot condone settlements beyond the TUC guidelines and they will certainly continue to encourage negotiators to reach settlements which genuinely fall within the guidelines. I repeat that this will be the policy of the Government in negotiations for


which they themselves are directly responsible. I repeat what I said in the House the other day: the social contract is not simply a deal between the Government and the TUC, but a deal between the Government and the people of this country. There is no other way to work in this country.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Can the right hon. Gentleman help the House and tell us how he defines the word "explosion" in this context? Is a 70 per cent. increase an explosion?

Mr. Short: I have stated Government policy on this matter and what we hope and believe will occur when the situation has settled down, but in the interim, during the change-over period, there will be difficulties. The Government have always recognised that.

Mr. Walker: This is an important matter. At the moment I know of no pay claim of less than 14 per cent., with the majority between 25 and 40 per cent. If such claims were to proceed, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government would take further action, or would they condone the claims?

Mr. Short: We will encourage wage settlements within the TUC guidelines, and so will the TUC. We have the full co-operation of the TUC in this matter. But during the transition from the extremely difficult situation left by the Opposition there will be difficulties and I hope that the Opposition will not add to those difficulties.

Mr. Ian Gow: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government could not condone any wage settlements outside the guidelines set down by the TUC. What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the Government not condoning such wage settlements and what will the Government do if wage settlements are made outside those guidelines?

Mr. Short: We are moving to a voluntary system which will involve negotiation. The TUC is co-operating. It has laid down guidelines along which it believes settlements should be made. We will co-operate, the TUC will co-operate and I hope that the Opposition will co-operate too.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of releases from Long Kesh. It has always been the policy of the British Government to phase out detention, consistent with security. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 9th July, he was on that date starting a carefully phased programme of releases linked to a resettlement scheme. A number of detainees have already been released in accordance with this policy and more will be released. There has been no change of policy regarding releasing of detainees. My hon. Friend also asked about recall of the House. Of course, if it is necessary the House will be recalled.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman) mentioned energy policy. I should have thought that, in the very short time that this Government have been in office, we have made massive strides towards a comprehensive energy policy—much more in five months than the previous Government did in two and a half years. In addition, we participated in the Washington energy conference and we shall continue to develop our energy policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), I am glad to say, devoted the whole of his speech to congratulating the Government, particularly on helping the Meriden factory.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), as one would expect, made a speech which was a mishmash of half-truths and innuendo. He quoted my speech on Clay Cross to the Labour Party Conference. Let me quote two other parts of that speech which I have quoted before in the House. I said:
But even a moment's thought will show you that the National Executive Committee cannot possibly advise Labour councillors to act unlawfully. We cannot. There are three reasons for this.
I then gave the reasons. Later I said:
Finally, I have got to say that the acceptance of this motion must not be taken by anybody to be an encouragement to Labour councillors anywhere to act unlawfully.
I should have thought that it could not be much clearer.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what we were going to do about this matter. We have said over and over again that when the full picture emerges—it involves many more people up and


down the country than just Clay Cross, as a result of the Conservative Government's iniquitous Act—we shall announce what we will do. Let us remember what I said in that speech, talking about the Act:
It presents every Labour councillor on housing authorities throughout the country with the dreadful dilemma of being forced by the law to do what is utterly repugnant to him, to do something which will depress the living standards of the people he represents.
That is the context in which this has to be seen.
The hon. and learned Member's niggling about Clay Cross was put into perspective by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), who talked about much bigger things such as Lonrho and Lowson.

Mr. Carlisle: Since the right hon. Gentleman criticises my speech I would point out that I never quoted from his speech at Blackpool. I merely said that the tone of it encouraged those who were breaking the law. Would he now answer the question? Was there, as has been reported in the newspapers, a meeting over the weekend with the national executive, attended by senior Cabinet Ministers, and did they pass the resolution referred to in the Press?

Mr. Short: I cannot answer for what meetings were held over the weekend. I certainly did not attend any meeting over the weekend about Clay Cross.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare spoke about the defence statement, which I am afraid will not come until the autumn. I agree that it is taking quite a while, but it is the most radical defence review ever carried out in this country. When it comes, I am sure that the House and the country will feel that the time taken on it has been well worth while.
My hon. Friend also mentioned once more the subject of Kilbrandon. I can assure him that this Government will never put forward any proposal for complete separatism. We intend to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom in whatever arrangements we may propose.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the Scottish people or the Welsh people decided that they wanted complete selfgovernment, would the right hon. Gentleman not think it the bounden democratic

duty of a British Government to give way on that matter?

Mr. Short: They have not done so, but this is a matter for the whole United Kingdom, for the cohesion and unity of the whole United Kingdom, on which we English Members have a say as well. This is a matter for Scotland, Wales and England, but we are absolutely opposed to separatism. I know that the Conservative Party is as well, and I hope that that all applies to all hon. Members. We certainly believe that a great deal of major decision-making should be devolved to the people of Scotland and Wales and we shall bring forward our proposals for this early in September. But they will not go anywhere near the point of separatism.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) mentioned once more the North-West report. I am sorry that it has not been possible to debate it in Government time. I did not specifically promise a debate. I said that I would do my best to try to find time for one, as she accurately quoted me as saying. I should have thought that it was an ideal subject for half a Supply Day. The hon. Lady will remember that, in the last Parliament, the Labour Opposition devoted a number of Supply Days to half-days on regional matters. When we return, if we cannot find any Government time for this subject, I think that she should persuade her own Front Bench to devote half of one of their days to it.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman simply said that he would see what he could do later, otherwise I might have pressed the matter. Having had that assurance, I went by another route.

Mr. Short: That was not a specific undertaking to have a debate before the recess. I did what I could, but it did not satisfy the hon. Lady. I am sorry that she is opposed to the regional employment premium—an opposition which she expressed with her customary vehemence. The REP is the most economical way of providing employment. Regional imbalance is one of our greatest economic weaknesses. It is in the interests of the whole country, including Lancaster, that that regional imbalance should be corrected.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) talked about the difficulties at the end of the Session. I agree that there are problems and that they were heightened this year by the parliamentary situation and the printing difficulties. I know that this has been inconvenient and I apologise to the House.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Worcester mentioned the number of major policy statements which are to be announced during the recess. We have been in office for five months and we had a terrible legacy from the Conservative Party. There was an enormous deficit, both internally and externally, and a three-day week. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten our legacy and the fact that Britain was working a three-day week? But in five months we have brought out massive new policies on issues on which the Conservatives did nothing.
If the House accepts the motion, Parliament will go into recess, but the Government's work in evolving policy will go on over August and September—[Interruption.]The right hon. Member for Worcester has asked for them today and I will tell him, if he listens. There will be a succession of policies over the next seven or eight weeks. As I promised, there will be a White Paper on industry. There will certainly be a Green Paper on the wealth tax, on which we want a continuing debate. There will certainly be a White Paper on capital transfer, on a gifts tax. There will certainly be a White Paper on the public ownership of

development land. There will be a White Paper on the Government's comprehensive policy scheme and a White Paper on Kilbrandon. Tomorrow I shall be making one of the most comprehensive dispersal statements ever made, implementing the Hardman Report.
So over the next few weeks there will be many policy statements, and after the General Election all these policies will be implemented by the Labour Government.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose —

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison): The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order. Without wishing to question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have thought that it was within the hearing of the Chair that that motion was distinctly opposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will put the Question again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday do adjourn till Tuesday 15th October.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITALS (SOMERSET)

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise once again the serious problem of the lack of adequate hospital facilities for Weston-super-Mare and, coupled with that, the difficulties experienced in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). We have coupled these subjects because in the order of priorities Weston-super-Mare will have the first new hospital to be built in the South-West Regional Health Authority area. I suspect that the hospital at Taunton will be built or commenced once the hospital at Weston-super-Mare is started.
Since I became the Member for Weston-super-Mare I have personally interviewed at least once, and perhaps more, all the Ministers who have been responsible for this matter. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is to reply and I have not interviewed him. I therefore hope that I shall be able to convince yet another Minister about the facts of the case. I know his particular and special interest in the elderly and infirm which may be more appropriately directed towards Weston-super-Mare where the population is somewhat elderly.
This issue has been in the headlines locally for about 19 years when the building of a new district general hospital was first mooted. It would be tedious and unnecessary to go over all the false alarms and starts which never materialised and all the debates about sites, so I shall merely recap on the recent history. The last occasion on which I raised this matter on the Adjournment was at the conclusion of that long night when we voted and voted and voted on the Industrial Relations Bill.
Within a few days of that, we were told of the purchase of the site at Uphill. For the local people that was a major step forward. It is an appropriate site for a district hospital and the design team was collected together once more and its work went ahead comparatively smoothly. Tenders were ready for placing to builders in the summer of 1973. May I stress at this point that for me this is not a party political matter but something on which I have met representatives from both Governments and a matter which I shall pursue with any Government of any colour until I get the hospital built for my constituents.
I shall have the special privilege not only of beginning this series of debates on the Bill but of ending them, too, because I have a petition which will be presented at the end of the debate on which have been obtained 45,000 signatures. It demonstrates the great feeling of my constituents about the issue of a new hospital. Petitions have been presented in the past. There were 13,000 signatures to one in 1965 and 20,000 to another in 1969. Some may take the view that a petition means nothing, but surely it illustrates the strength of local feeling.
I refer to a letter from the chairman of the local constituency Labour Party in Weston-super-Mare in which that gentleman indicated his general support for me on this issue, bearing in mind that he does not normally agree with me but saying that everyone should combine to ensure that we get our new hospital. He attended a meeting organised by the medical staff, and he told me in his letter:
The picture the Consultants and GPs presented one after another gave a terrifying state of affairs which cannot and must not be allowed to continue somehow we must all find a way to have the existing plans which are ready for tender implemented as a matter of great urgency.
The letter was signed by Mr. A. W Gosnall, Chairman, Constituency Labour Party, Chairman Co-operative Party, Member EC, Bristol Trades Council, Delegate, Weston Trades Council.
Other bodies including the ratepayers, the young wives and others put their names in support of the petition. I have two or three letters from medical staff at the hospital. One was from one of the consultants, Mr. A. Hinchcliffe, who said:
Before applying for my post last year, I made extensive inquiries at the South Western


Regional Hospital Board concerning the District General Hospital at Weston. I was assured that the building would start in October 1973. At my interview I was asked my views on the Weston-super-Mare General Hospital. Having worked for a number of years in Bristol, I was aware of the present inadequacies and replied that I was applying only because a new Hospital was about to be started (an expected completion date for 1978 was given in the detailed advertisement for the post). My colleagues and I have recently learned the reasons for delays and I find it difficult to believe that these could not have been anticipated at the time of the interview. Had more information such as that relating to the priority order of capital building in the Region been available at the time, it is doubtful that I would have applied for my post. However, I came to Weston quite prepared for up to five difficult years before appropriate facilities would be available. After my arrival, it became apparent that the situation was going to be far more difficult than I had anticipated in spite of considerable recent expenditure on the present hospitals to temporarily improve their facilities.
He adds:
Owing to the good will of its hospital staff, this hospital has used every possible device to ensure a maximum safe throughput of patients. The serious deficit in its facilities means that it can only offer a less than adequate service to a decreasing proportion of the local population.
Another surgeon, Mr. Peter Reed, writes:
I applied for the appointment of Consultant Surgeon at Weston on the understanding that a new hospital was to start being built during the year of my appointment—that was last year. Although it was clear even at that time that delays in building are always possible, I was and am still prepared to invest a number of years to help establish a new district general hospital. Being involved at this stage in the development of a hospital is an exciting personal challenge and offers tremendous potential rewards in terms of job fulfilment.
The point has probably been taken by the Minister, but Mr. Reed repeats it. He says:
I do not think it too outrageous to suggest that if this hospital does not start soon, and certainly should it be indefinitely deferred or scrapped, then those members of the consultant staff who still have a significant time to serve in their professional careers would seek work elsewhere. Certainly I would not stay under the present circumstances. Although I have once returned from America to work in this country through choice, I would reluctantly consider emigrating once more, not for primarily financial reward but merely to gain adequate circumstances in which to pursue the work for which I have been trained.
Mr. Reed has an MD (Manchester), an MS (Chicago) and an FRCS (London).

He is a highly-qualified man, and we are glad to have him in Weston-super-Mare. I hope that he never has to leave us.
The matron has written as follows about the nursing problems:
When I was appointed to my present post of Matron in 1968, one of the main attractions of the appointment was the opportunity to serve on the Project Team for the proposed District General Hospital as a Nursing Member …future career prospects for my senior nursing staff and myself are rapidly receding—as the prospect of the new hospital is receding.
I believe that those short extracts from letters are enough to show the mood of the staff. I shall present to the Minister a full portfolio of the views of various other members of the medical fraternity, including general practitioners and others.
A document has been prepared for local authorities and other interested people to apprise them of the situation as the doctors and medical staff see it. It says:
We must impress on all people concerned that we as doctors are not simply looking for a new building in which to work at a steady pace. We are not seeking refinements or luxury aids to medical care, but basic facilities. This district needs a proper District Hospital now—and not in the time it takes to build one!
I confirm that. I believe that the present facilities are inadequate and that the five-year period to build a hospital is far too long.
The South-West has on the whole received a comparatively lesser expenditure of the national cake for hospital building than it has a right to have. We have done substantially less well than London, for example.
We also have the substantial problem of holidaymakers. They are not a problem in terms of industry, because tourism is the most important industry in the South-West, but they create a considerable load on public facilities. The fact that a person who breaks his leg or has a heart attack in Weston-super-Mare has come there on holiday, and is therefore not being ill in Manchester, Birmingham or London, does not lessen the load on Weston-super-Mare General Hospital but immensely increases it. Last summer we had to close one ward because the pressure of work was too great.
In the detailed report to which I have referred mention is made of the problems caused by holidaymakers. Until recently the Department always refused to accept holidaymakers when assessing populations for medical facilities, but when people are working out salaries for local authority officials they are happy to include holidaymakers among the population. It is a special problem of the South-West.
I come on to the question of building costs. One of the reasons why the tenders were not put out by the previous Government was that the costs of Barnstaple and Plymouth had greatly exceeded what was expected. I wonder whether the Department's tendering systems are of the best. I wonder whether a fixed price tender, which must at present include a large proportion for inflation is the best way of putting hospitals out to tender, and whether an adjustable charge for inflation should be included.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) told me when he was Secretary of State that he was considering whether the proceeds from the sale of land owned by the regional authorities could be put to capital projects. I understand that in the past the proceeds from the sale of land belonging to a regional hospital board, as it then was, went to the Treasury, so that there was no incentive to sell land, but the rules have been changed, and the proceeds could be put to further capital projects in each region.
I have two other points on the more general issue. First, the prospect of staffing a district general hospital at Weston are very good. The medical people tell me that, if the medical facilities can be provided, staffing does not look like being a difficulty, but at Plymouth, where they are going ahead with stage two of their hospital, there could well be difficulties over staffing. I do not know whether that is taken into account when priorities are being decided, but it should be considered.
We in the South-West have not done as well as other regions. I appreciate that the health service is already short of cash for its current affairs, and that capital works were severely cut by the previous Government, cuts which have

been maintained by the present Government. Is it not time to ask whether we should find the funds from another region? That is difficult for the Minister, but we have a cast-iron case of the greatest possible priority at Weston-super-Mare. If the money must come from another region, so be it, but at all costs we must have the hospital.
I may be misinformed, but I understand that the Secretary of State is to make a tour of hospitals in the South-West. I should very much like her to call at Weston-super-Mare and see the present inadequate facilities. If she saw for herself, I am sure that she would appreciate why people are so worked up about it, why we think that it is so important. She would be made very welcome and shown round our hospitals.
I do not want to take more time than necessary, because if I am brief some of my hon. Friends may be allowed to say a word or two. My constituents have used every democratic means at their disposal to show their concern in the matter. I shall go on urging this hospital as long as we do not have a starting date. I hope that the Minister will act to prevent the breakdown of proper hospital facilities in Weston-super-Mare, and will announce this evening the starting and completion date for our hospital.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who will urge the case for the Taunton Hospital, and I are in close agreement about the necessity for improving hospital facilities in Somerset. Some of my constituents would possibly be served by a new Taunton Hospital. It backs up what I said earlier, that we in the South-West have been badly treated, when we find that two of the major centres in Somerset are both screaming for a new hospital. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us tonight.

7.58 p.m.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), I speak with no wish to show a partisan spirit. That is, I have not the least wish to provoke or engage in party political argument. But I speak with all the urgency and emphasis that I can command, for I feel most strongly about the need for a new


hospital at Taunton and at Weston-super-Mare.
One recognises well the present burdens on Ministers, not least Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security. Many of us on both sides of the House have long admired the capacity of the Minister who has courteously come to answer the debate, as we have his immediate colleague, the new Minister of State, whom we all congratulate on his new appointment. We hope very much that he will be able to give us replies to some of the points of significance about which we feel so keenly which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and myself have already raised and which others of my hon. Friends intend to raise.
Nor do I argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. We are not competitors in any sense. He and I, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is much affected by the matters which we are discussing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), represent a common cause for Somerset and the people we represent. For those people we demand—and we are determined to achieve—adequate and modern facilities in matters of health as in all else which we can influence for the better. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) takes the same view in respect of his local people.
I do not dispute the urgent need for a new hospital at Weston-super-Mare. That need does not affect in any way the overwhelming case for a new hospital at Taunton. Both are needed and the requirement for both is urgent. I think that it can be argued that the South Western Regional Health Authority has had imposed upon it by the Government a most unenviable task in deciding priorities. Indeed, it has to exercise almost the wisdom of Solomon in deciding how the slender allocation of funds is to be divided as between, for example, Weston-super-Mare and Taunton or between any of the other many deserving cases in our part of the world.
Incidentally, and I am sure that my hon. Friends and the Minister will agree, I wish to say how fortunate we are in the South Western Regional Health Authority to have the leadership of that

distinguished and competent man, Mr. Northcott.
The reality is simply described. New hospitals at Weston-super-Mare and Taunton are equally needed. It has been admitted constantly by the Government that there is a crucial need. I know the case for Taunton better and I have argued it over many years. I had established a file 18 inches thick. It was destroyed by the fire in the Palace of Westminster a little while ago. There have been letters, meetings with Ministers and speeches. The last occasion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater will recall, was in October 1973 when the then Secretary of State thought sufficiently of the case to break precedent and to answer the debate himself. It is worth quoting one sentence from my right hon. Friend's reply. He said:
I assure my right hon. Friend that no one in my Department disputes the need for a new district general hospital at Taunton. He does not have to argue the need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October 1973; Vol. 861, No. 861.]
Yet it is necessary to do so and I shall continue to argue the need. I shall do so until in the end we get our way. Obviously I feel this need extremely keenly. I speak of what I know for, like my hon. Friends, I live locally and my family have used the local hospitals.
We have a superb service in Taunton. It is deplorable that the good people who work in the hospitals in Taunton should be obliged to give those services in surroundings and circumstances that are in this year of grace 1974 woefully inadequate. The House will not be surprised to hear me say that my greatest constituency ambition is to see this project begun. Of all constituency matters with which I have been concerned whilst I have been in this House, whether they have been bypasses, the motorway, schools, the Taunton flood scheme or the multitude of personal cases with which any Member becomes involved, I do not believe that I have even been so concerned about any as I am about this matter.
Nor is this a matter merely affecting my own constituency. We are talking about Somerset's district general hospital. At the moment Somerset has no such hospital and it should have one. Its provision is long overdue and Taunton is that opportunity. There is now much talk of community hospitals. There are


projects for them in various parts of the country as in our own country. Surely it is appropriate to get the priorities first. We must have the district general hospital first. Community hospitals should take their services, their strengths and their bases from district general hospitals.
Because we have spoken about this matter so often in the past there is no need to rehearse the disabilities of the present situation at any length. In summary let me say that in Taunton we have old buildings. There are four and one of the principal examples is Musgrove. It is a temporary wartime structure that is much dispersed. It is a thoroughly awkward building in which to work. It is an example, perhaps, of the new genteel British poverty which means that we have to make do with old and inadequate buildings. Then there is East Reach, which was built in 1809. It is archaic and with the exception of a new accident centre, which was provided only after I led a deputation some years ago to see Ministers and which is one example, following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, of where we were able to prove the holiday need and to receive some special consideration, the whole place is dreadfully old-fashioned.
There are problems of separation. I do not refer to the simple inconveniences of having to walk a little distance or to get in a car and drive for 10 minutes but the serious inconveniences that arise from the separation of units—namely, the inevitable fall-down in services.
I could quote a number of matters of practical measure which affect people living locally. For example, the library is in one place and there is not immediate access from the other place. The postgraduate centre is also separated. The House will be able to imagine the effect that these circumstances have on recruitment for our hospital in the context of the attractiveness of other places. The House will be able to imagine the inevitable effect upon the quality of medicine in poor conditions.
Then there is the matter of additional expenditure. I have argued before in this House, and I shall continue to do so, that when inadequate capital sums are spent it is inevitable that a waste of

public money is involved in patching. The longer the delays in spending capital, the more cash that is required to patch. In 1971–72 there was the authorisation of £500,000 on maintenance at East Reach and Musgrove. That included expenditure on engineering and the provision of certain up-to-date facilities—notably, theatres. I was most interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare say that the Secretary of State is proposing to visit hospitals in the South-West. I hope that the right hon. Lady will come to Musgrove. She will there see the torn floors, the roofs that leak and the conditions in which people are working.
Although we are spending sums of the sort that I have described, thay are still inadequate and must necessarily be inadequate to bring up to date these old buildings that were never intended to last more than a short time. The disabilities list is long and there have been disappointments. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke of the disappointments that he and his constituents have experienced. It has been the same in Taunton, only possibly worse.
I remember the story beginning when I was first elected. I suppose the most important date was 1962 when we had the regional hospital plan introduced by the then Minister of Health. We found ourselves in one plan and then we found ourselves excluded from the next. In 1966 I took a deputation to see Ministers and we had the plan revised. That was a move forward. In 1970 it was announced that construction would start in 1975–76. The first firm date for that was April 1975. It has not the remotest chance of being kept. The latest date for a start has been estimated to be October 1976. I do not believe that that will be maintained either, but I hope that I am wrong. What does the Minister of State think about that date? Is it the Government's wish and intention to endeavour to keep to it or not?
We were intended to have a large hospital on the Lyngford site in country between the Bridgwater constituency and Taunton—at any rate on the Bridgwater side of Taunton. We were intended to have a large hospital of over 1,000 beds. The original plan was for a first phase


of 676 beds and the bulk of the acute services. Then we learnt that it was proposed to divide that phase 1 into two sub-phases, if you please, with no guarantee when phase lb, so to speak, would follow upon phase 1a. So the completion date for the whole has varied between 10 and 25 years.
That takes us up to the year 2000 for the completion of a project which was first considered in 1943 or earlier. Is it any wonder that there is in my part of the country resignation, disappointment and some degree of genuine anger? We simply do not know where we are, and I ask the Minister of State to do his best tonight to relieve our uncertainty.
I want to speak a little about the Department itself and the news we have received from it. The position has frequently been equivocal, in my opinion, and sometimes plainly discouraging, I am told that there are no fewer than 160 doctors and 52 nurses in the Department to look after the regions. No doubt they are devoted people but it seems that too often the sum of the activity as it goes out to the regions is one of cumulative vagueness, which is a worry to those who are on the receiving end of the decisions.
I give an example of this in the position regarding Harness. We were told at Taunton that we should have Harness, that the idea of the standardisation of construction and design would save money, which would be a good and simple thing to do. I thought that it was an attractive idea. But I am told now locally that Harness may well turn out to be more expensive than the original designs of what was proposed at Taunton. So more time has been wasted.
Then we have not been able to get authority from the Department for planning. The regional hospital authority is therefore pressing on with its own planning, thereby involving itself in great expenditure and cost. I support that course as being a proper risk to take. But even if the Minister of State is unable to do so tonight, I hope that he will later be able to underwrite this expenditure. The reason I feel that this planning which the authority is doing is so significant lies in the fact that I am told that if site work is begun now, costing some £2 million or so, it will still be eight to 10 years before Lyngford hospital is

operational—in other words, before the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and myself get what other people take for granted.
There is also the problem of the vagueness of the Department. We hear that now a limit of some £10 million has been set on the expenditure. But we know that we cannot have a viable hospital at Lyngford for that money. What is the truth?
We are told also that it is now apparently a rule that no contract should last for more than four years. I do not know how that rule will affect the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, but it would seem not to have application to our hospital at Lyngford. What is the reality of the situation? If the Minister is able to clear the air, it will be immensely helpful. He can surely see how the uncertainties which exist in our part of the country are very much added to and felt as a result of lack of clear guidance filtering down from the Department.
I do not want to make only parochial points in the debate but to deal with wider matters as well. There is obviously great competition for Government expenditure. I remember making common cause with the Secretary of State for Social Services when we established the Expenditure Committee in the House and tried to bring judgments collectively of Members in deciding these very difficult and sometimes intractable questions. I think that it would be right for me to say tonight—and I hope that my hon. Friends agree—that if the right hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Department at any time need assistance in pressing the case on the Government for more money to be spent on the National Health Service, they have only to say so and we shall support them for all we are worth.
It was a matter of extreme irritation to some of us, for example, last March, when £1,378 million was returned to the economy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a mere £3 million only was earmarked for the National Health Service, and that for what some people—not I—regarded as a trivial reason, free contraception.
It was a matter of incredibility to many of us to find that the £300 million provided a few days ago for reflating the economy did not include a penny for the


National Health Service. I am not trying to make partisan points but I am sure that if one polled people in Taunton, or Bridgwater, or Weston-super-Mare, or Wells, or South Gloucester asking whether they would rather have money spent on food subsidies or on new hospitals, there would be no doubt of the answer. It is incomprehensible that from two Government reviews of expenditure the National Health Service has been so blatantly left out.
I make the same point again in a different way. I have here the document
Health Care: the growing dilemma
written by Robert Mawell of McKinsey's. It is a remarkable and important document, worthy perhaps of a debate of its own. No doubt the Minister is familiar with it, and inter alia it contains a number of tables. One of them shows the proportions of gross national product spent on the health services in eight countries, including Scandinavian countries, the United States, Russia and the largest countries in the EEC. It shows that the United Kingdom is the second lowest of all, bottom being Italy, whose health services it is well known are a perfect disgrace. What is more, "Health Care" sees and shows the position deteriorating.
That is a bad national picture. It makes the omission of more money for the National Health Service all the more unsatisfactory. But there is yet a worse feature to come. It is reasonable to consider the West Country in the context of the whole. In my opinion the West Country merits special consideration. I do not say that as a mere partisan point. I think that it is easy to prove.
For example, there is our problem of geography. The northern part of our region is nearer to Scotland than it is to Cornwall—an extraordinary reflection of the situation. We also have great unevenness of population. Exmoor, Dartmoor, Bodmin Moor and other parts of the West, which are underpopulated, are household names in the United Kingdom.
We also have above-average requirements of capital. For instance, out of the 260 hospitals in the region 69 are over 125 years old. East Reach I have already referred to. It was built in 1809 and is 165 years old. Of those hospitals, 109 are between 75 and 125 years old. Look-

ing back on it, the reality is that historically Cornwall, Devon and, perhaps, Somerset have not been the wealthiest areas in the United Kingdom. It is not surprising, therefore, that our hospitals are old and have not been renewed.
If a State service means anything, it must mean fairness as between one region and another. It is obvious that extra capital is needed in the West Country to cope with the backlog of building. The need has never been recognised. It should have been recognised.
Then there are other special factors. There is the influx of population, and population drift. I regret to say that we have a higher than average number of people who are aged or who are mentally handicapped. This gives rise to great strains. For example, the ration of beds per 1,000 of the population for the mentally handicapped is 44 per cent. As the Minister will know, that is above the national average. Thus the South-West spends £2 million per annum more than the national average on mental handicap hospitals. The more that is spent on special needs, the less there will be for normal requirements. So our already unreasonable situation is exacerbated in the way that I have described.
Nor, as a matter of fact—not a matter of opinion—is there any scope in the community services to relieve pressure on the hospital services. The regional health authority has been responsible for the hospital services since April 1974 and in our area has had made a very good inquiry. It is plain that what I say is so, at any rate at present funding levels. We find that there is an above-average use of GP beds. There is a long waiting list for surgery.
I quoted the figures for Taunton in the debate to which I have referred. I shall not rehearse the figures. But I repeat what I said then: the degree of human misery involved in waiting for surgery of various sorts is difficult to bear—one, two, four or six years, or longer. The personal hardship that people suffer and the hopelessness that they feel as a result is one of the saddest things that one experiences in one's ordinary Saturday morning routine surgeries. I am afraid that the truth is that there are whole classes of people who will never get treatment in their lifetime—the over60s, for example,


who require non-urgent surgery. In most of those cases, that surgery will never be done.
The need, therefore, is evident. We are supposed to supply a service in our part of the world equal to the national requirement, and we cannot provide it. Rather than pursuing this matter further, I merely say that the West Country has special disabilities and needs special help to overcome them. If the Government will not supply the means to enable us to fulfil our responsibility, they ought to say so and come clean, and we ought to he quite clear where we stand. I am not making a partisan point. I would say this, as I have said it in the past, to any Minister. We want to know where we stand.
In this context it is astonishing that the allocations of taxpayers' funds for running the hospital services in the South-West are below the national average—believe it or not. In respect of revenue, it has now been established that there is a shortfall of £4·5 million, or some 4 per cent. in the current year—a formidable amount in this time of financial stringency. These are no fanciful calculations of mine. The calculation made is based on the Crossman formula and is acknowledged by the Department of Health and Social Security to be substantially correct. Indeed, the Department has undertaken to put the matter in order—not at once, as might be thought to be appropriate when we found out that we were not getting our proper desserts, but through an equalisation factor included annually in the revenue development allocation. On the assumption that the application of this formula will correct the situation by 1980–81, the region will have lost no less than £21·7 million by that time. I repeat that this is no fanciful calculation. These are not my figures. They are figures which are agreed between the region and the Department.
We have, therefore, special needs, and we have particular requirements. We are not even getting a fair crack of the whip. As my hon. Friends will immediately recognise, £21·7 million is more than enough money to build a new hospital at Weston-super-Mare and at Taunton, and to leave money over for everything that Bridgwater needs, and Wells, too, and Wellington, Minehead and all the other

places about which we are concerned. The situation is simply intolerable.
The next matter I put to the Minister is the suggestion that this money should be paid not over the years, in the way proposed, but as a single amount and without delay. It is harder to provide accurate bases of comparison for capital allocation, but this also requires inquiry. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter. The substantial shortfall in revenue is certainly reason for complaint. If there is a shortfall in capital, that complaint will become very fierce indeed.
Leaving aside that matter—which is not proved; I do not know the situation, although I do know it in relation to revenue—another point requires consideration. There is a close link between revenue and capital in these matters, obviously. The South Western Regional Health Authority was promised finance by Ministers some time ago. That undertaking has been temporarily cancelled by the pressure. That simply will not do. I ask the Minister to restore the position to the status quo ante.
On a point of detail, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, I thought that the Minister of State made a very good point when he suggested that properties should be sold. We all support it. However, it is extremely important also that regional health authorities should be able to allocate the receipts to local projects, because such sales would be much better received if matters were dealt with in the way that I have described. That is a small point, apparently, but it would be very helpful.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate the concern of us all. The services of the health service are less good in this country today than services are in some other countries. They are declining in competence. That is a great pity. It is obvious that nuance is inadequate. Inside this scene, in the West Country we have special problems. I believe that we are entitled to special allocations and special treatment. We do not ask for anything more than our proper share. I say that we are not getting it. I hope that the Minister will consider with care what has been said and ensure that both the hospitals in Weston-super-Mare and Taunton can be begun without further procrastination and delay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. May I remind the House that there are 45 subjects down for debate. If each subject takes one hour we shall be here until Wednesday. I appeal to hon. Members to be brief.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I shall be brief after that brilliant advocacy of the vitally necessary improvements to the hospitals of Somerset, particularly in Taunton and Weston-super-Mare. My constituency is in the catchment area of both hospitals. For far too long we have had to put up with an inadequate, worn-out, old-fashioned, small district hospitals. The last Government promised that there would be some hope from the new community hospital in Wells. However, that has rapidly been receding.
We are now pinning our hopes on something being done as quickly as possible in either Weston-super-Mare or Taunton. I am not asking for a vast increase in Government expenditure on out county additional to the amount which is being spent in the rest of the country. We need to be allocated more of the money which has gone to other parts.
We are badly treated. We started a long way behind, as in so many other things. We are far behind in the provision of primary schools in Somerset. We suffer greatly through being left out in the cold over health service facilities and hospital provision generally. It is often said that we have the finest health service in the world. That may once have been true. I am sad to say that it appears that we can no longer afford to run the health service at anything like the standard at which it should be run.
No doubt we should be thinking seriously of how to bring more of the nation's resources to bear on paying for a better health service. In the meantime, I am strongly advocating that in the West Country with our particular problems of increased populations at certain times of the year we should have a better share of resources than we have had. I fully support the arguments that have already been advanced.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)

and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). My right hon. Friend and I are old partners in this. I have been proud to support him on previous occasions because my constituents in the main go to the hospital in Taunton. Obviously, I have a direct interest in the quality of services provided there. I have not previously supported my hon. Friend, but another part of my constituency looks to Weston-super-Mare for the more complex and critical of the services provided by the health service.
I am, perhaps, the only Member entitled to speak to the full motion in that I have constituents who are affected by the state of both hospitals. I do not there-for approach this in a competitive spirit. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that recognition of the case for the district general hospitals should not in any way undermine the good case for the local community hospital. There were proposals that the hospitals at Bridgwater, Mine-head and Burnham should be closed. These provide useful services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has referred to the staffing problems and to the amount of voluntary help. The work of the League of Friends in Bridgwater, Burnham and Minehead is excellent. For all the reasons of modern medicine, facilities need to be grouped together on one major site. Part-time nurses and help for other facilities can be obtained from within a community which is willing to support a local activity. It is recognised that modern medicine and the complex facilities required dictate that first-class district general hospital facilities should be available to my constituents and to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
This area of Somerset, sadly, does that very badly. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) the then Secretary of State answered an Adjournment debate on this subject. That was a measure of the importance attached to this issue because it is the only occasion that I can remember when an Adjournment debate has been answered by a Secretary of State. That was a recognition of the seriousness of the situation. The Minister is now following in that tradition.
My right hon. Friend has said that we do not make this appeal in any party


political sense. We were pressing for information from the Ministers in our party just as we press the Minister now. There are obviously difficulties in the capital spending programme and the substantial capital cost involved. But there must be an end to the situation in which neither the people in our constituencies nor the staff of the hospitals know what their future is. We want the facts. In certain respects, they might not turn out to be all that we hoped to hear. But we must know the situation so that people realise where they stand.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They are right to draw attention to their local problems, but I look at the matter as Member for another area within the South Western Regional Hospital Board. I am a new Member and I do not have the experience of this problem which my right hon. and hon. Friends have. However, the question of hospitals and National Health Service provision in the South-West has struck me forcibly, both as parliamentary candidate and as Member, as being one of the respects in which the South-West suffers from the formulae being applied by central Government.
I find it difficult to believe, but I am told that the formula on which spending, both revenue and capital, on the health service is worked out is as follows: half of the population in the region, a quarter of the cases treated and a quarter of the occupied beds. I do not understand how the beds can be occupied if they do not exist. It is a very peculiar calculation to adopt. If that is the formula, it is extremely crude It takes no account of the age of the buildings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) drew attention to the age of some of the buildings in the South-West. One in four of the hospitals in the South Western Regional Hospital Board area were built before Florence Nightingale went to Scutari. That is a striking state of affairs.
The formula also takes no account of the suitability of the buildings. At a major hospital in my constituency, the Frenchay Hospital, there are still many hilts left over from the war. The formula takes no account of the summer influx

of visitors who come to the South-West, its sunshine and holiday beaches to improve their health. Sometimes it does not work out in that way and they may end up in our hospitals. We are therefore performing a service to people from other regions of the country. The formula also takes no account of old people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton spoke of the deficiency of £4½ million on revenue spending in the South-West as having been agreed with the Department of Health and Social Security. I too inquired into the capital spending deficiency. I was led to believe that it was currently between £3 million and £7 million. That is a very large bracket. A figure of £7 million is more than twice £3 million. I am not surprised therefore that my right hon. Friend was hesitant about using an estimate, but that is the estimate I have heard, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm or deny it.
The South-West region is a very large area. It has special National Health Service problems, particularly in hospital building, yet it seems to be at the back of the queue. We in the South-West region will continue to press until we get a bit further up the queue.

8.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on winning pride of place in what threatens to be a dauntingly long series of debates. The House will have much appreciated the wholly reasonable tone in which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have advanced their case. I shall do my best to answer as many as possible of the many questions that have been raised.
I should like to state at the outset that the need for new district general hospitals at both Weston-super-Mare and Taunton is not in dispute. My Department has for many years accepted in principle the need for both these projects. The former South Western Regional Hospital Board had given a high priority to the needs of these two areas in its capital programme, and the newly-formed South Western Regional Health Authority has recently confirmed the high priority it attributes to these two hospitals. The need for the new hospitals is not in dispute.
Hon. Members will know that the Hospital Plan published in 1962 and revised in 1966 provided the foundation for the planning of new hospitals throughout the country. It envisages a network of district general hospitals with sophisticated facilities in the principal towns, supported by smaller hospitals. In particular it included proposals for new hospitals at Weston-super-Mare and Taunton.
The new regional health authorities have responsibility for the planning of hospital and other health services within the capital allocations made available to them by the Department. The South Western Regional Health Authority is responsible for the health needs of a population of over 3 million, which is greatly increased during the summer months by the influx of holiday visitors, not least from my constituency.
When the South Western Regional Health Authority took on these responsibilities in April of this year it inherited some relatively new hospital provision, such as that at Truro in Cornwall, Yeovil in Somerset and the recently commissioned Wonford district general hospital at Exeter. But it also inherited a considerable ongoing capital commitment associated with the recent commencement of work on new hospitals at Derriford, Plymouth and Barnstaple. Lastly, there are of course a number of small and medium-size hospitals in the South Western Region which have provided excellent services in the past but which in the context of present-day needs are now out of date.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and his hon. Friends have drawn to our attention the age of many hospitals in their areas. The need for new hospitals at Weston-super-Mare and Taunton is not in dispute. The timing of these developments has to be considered against the background of the health needs of the South-Western Region and, of course, in the context of the present difficult economic situation.
Before turning to the financial background against which the regional health authority has to operate, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the devoted service being given by the staff of the existing hospitals at

Weston-super-Mare and Taunton and, indeed, elsewhere in the region. Ministers are fully aware of the current problems facing the National Health Service, not least the morale of the staff employed in the service. Throughout these difficulties doctors and nurses as well as paramedical and ancillary staff in Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, as in countless hospitals elsewhere, continue to provide a high standard of treatment and care in the face of difficulties from the use of old and inadequate accommodation.
Both the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton have mentioned the numbers of people on the waiting list for admission to hospitals in their areas. The figures they quoted are correct. This too is a problem which exists elsewhere in the country. The major problem with waiting lists is not so much the number of patients on them but the length of time that many with less urgent conditions have to wait before being admitted. My Department is discussing with the Joint Consultants Committee the possibility of issuing general guidance to the new health authorities and it is hoped that this will help towards reducing waiting time.
We must recognise that public expenditure on health and personal social services is unlikely, at least in the immediate future, to increase at the rate many of us had hoped. Indeed, following the drastic 20 per cent. cut imposed by the previous Government last December, the amount available for health capital will be significantly less than in recent years. There is no doubt that the gravity of the economic situation overall means that some reduction in the capital programme will continue for some years.
Another problem is resource allocation. Before this year capital has largely been distributed in relation to future population forecasts. Capital expenditure per head of population in the South-Western Region over the period 1962–63 to 1972–73 has at current prices been about £40, which was the national average. On this basis the region has had a fair share. For 1974–75 a special procedure had to be adopted for allocations and the South-Western Regional Health Authority's main capital programme allocation at nearly £3·35 per head of population was slightly over the national average owing


to the above-average existing commitment in the region.
With the aim of finding a better way of spending our money, we are considering the extent to which present methods of allocating resources to regions can be adjusted to make them more responsive to the needs of different parts of the country, particularly areas of health deprivation. It is not easy either to find the right criteria or to effect the necessary changes in the balance of services as quickly as we should like; but hon. Members may be assured that we shall be seeking every possible means of accelerating progress.
I shall now deal in more detail with the need for new hospitals at Weston-super-Mare and Taunton. Weston-superMare has at present some 300 hospital beds in five old hospitals and there has for some years been strong pressure for a new district general hospital. The need for a district general hospital at Weston-super-Mare is accepted both by my Department and the regional health authority. The first phase of the development is planned to provide a total of 401 beds. These are to include 225 acute, 56 maternity, 50 mental illness and 40 geriatric assessment beds. The 1981 population of the area has been estimated at 110,000. It is thought, however, that the potential population growth may increase this to 150,000 or 200,000. The selected site provides approximately 30 acres for building. The building and engineering cost is estimated at £8 million—at 1974 prices—and the scheme is now ready to go out to tender. The work is expected to take three and a half to four years. A further phase of development, at present not programmed, will be needed to complete the hospital.
I recognise the efforts made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare over the years to secure a new hospital for the Weston-super-Mare area. In 1969 he brought a deputation to the then Minister of State to present a petition, containing 14,000 signatures, for the early provision of a new hospital. On 29th January 1971, at 4.57 a.m., he opened an Adjournment debate on the local hospital facilities and pressed for a starting date for the new hospital. He has since discussed the matter on several occasions with Ministers and he has pursued it in correspondence. Throughout, his anxiety has

concerned the place of the Weston development in the region's capital programme relative to other major developments. I have noted that the hon. Gentleman will be presenting an even larger petition of some 45,000 signatures tomorrow. This of course will be considered carefully by my right hon. Friend and my other ministerial colleagues.
The position briefly is that while the South Western Regional Hospital Board was able to let contracts for the Barnstaple and Derriford schemes in 1973–74, it was not possible to make a start on the Weston-super-Mare project, the third very large development planned for that year. The former regional hospital board has consistently stated that the Weston-super-Mare District General Hospital was the next priority, and this has already been accepted by Ministers as was made clear in the Adjournment debate on the proposed Taunton District General Hospital on 18th October, 1973.
The regional capital allocations for 1974–75 were established earlier this year following discussion with regional officers. At that time it was envisaged that the capital allocation to the South-Western Region, although relatively large, would not enable the regional health authority to make a start on a new district general hospital at Weston-super-Mare in the current financial year. This was recently confirmed at the last meeting of the regional health authority on 8th July when it was agreed that there seemed no prospect of providing money for a start on the district general hospital in 1974–75. The regional health authority reaffirmed the high priority it attached to this project, and the regional administrator has recently, on 25th July, written to the Department asking for additional funds to make a start this year. Additional capital funds for 1974–75 are not currently available, and in any event adequate finance will be needed for the three to four years that the building of a new hospital at Weston-super-Mare will take.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has previously asked about the financial prospect of selling land or buildings to increase the region's capital allocation. He raised the matter again this evening. The regional hospital board has reported to the Department the likelihood of land sales of the order of £1 million to £2 million in 1974–75. The intention


has been, under new arrangements for hospital land transactions which came into operation in April 1974, to grant regions a supplement to their normal capital allocations over a period of years for the receipt of land sales. While the details of these new arrangements have yet to be worked out, the South Western Regional Health Authority has now advised the Department that in any event a recent examination of potential land sales indicates that it is unlikely that these would yield sufficient funds to enable an immediate start on the Weston-super-Mare project and such money as is obtained will probably be taken up with the acquisition of sites for large developments and expenditure on smaller schemes.
The hon. Member also asked me about fixed-price tenders. In fact, for contracts in excess of two years, as in the case of Weston-super-Mare, the fluctuation clause would be allowed—that is a clause which will take account of increases in the prices of materials and of labour.
The right hon. Member for Taunton mentioned the shortfall of revenue to the South-Western Region. We do not accept the health authority's figures. Officials are meeting officers of the authority shortly to discuss this important matter. In any event, as the right hon. Gentleman accepts, this is revenue and not capital and, therefore, does not affect directly the region's capital programmes.
In summary, the need for a new hospital at Weston-super-Mare is accepted and planning for the hospital is completed, but the South Western Regional Health Authority sees little prospect of a start in 1974–75 unless additional capital funds are made available and until more is known about the capital resources likely to be available in 1975–76 and succeeding years. Also, the funds needed for a new district general hospital at Weston-super-Mare must be considered in the context of the region's capital programme including, of course, the heavy continuing commitment on Barnstaple and Derriford.
I turn now to the need for a new hospital at Taunton. The right hon. Member for Taunton will recall that Cmnd 1604, "A Hospital Plan for England and Wales", published in 1962, indicated that the main hospital service for the West

Somerset area would be based on the redeveloped Taunton and Somerset Hospital on the existing site at Musgrove Park, Taunton, to which he referred. A start in the period 1966–67 to 1970–71 was then envisaged. Subsequent consideration by the regional hospital board suggested that the Musgrove Park site would not be suitable, and Command 3000, which revised the Hospital Plan and was published in 1966, reflected the later intention to develop a new district general hospital on a site at Lyngford on the north-east side of the town.
Over the past decade there has been considerable local pressure for the early provision of a new hospital for the Taunton area. The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, played a leading and most distinguished role. He has made numerous representations in correspondence, in meetings with Ministers and in Adjournment debates, particularly the celebrated Adjournment debate to which lie referred this evening. There was local concern at the decisions not to redevelop the Musgrove Park site, but in reply it was pointed out that the new site was in a better location for the catchment area as a whole and provided more space for future development.
The department has never disputed the need for a new district general hospital for the Taunton area. This was stated by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and I repeat his message tonight. However, for financial reasons and in the light of developments elsewhere in the region which, in the board's view, had a greater priority—for example, major developments at Barnstaple, Derriford and Weston-super-Mare—a start on the Taunton project has not so far been practicable.
In the meantime, to maintain services and provide improvements, capital works costing over £1 million have been or are being carried out at the existing hospitals in Taunton—notably renewal of the engineering services and improvements to theatres at the East Reach branch of the Taunton and Somerset Hospital and improvements to theatres and X-ray facilities at Musgrove Park.
In August 1972, following examination of the board's initial submission, the Department approved the proposals for the functional content of a new district


general hospital to be provided in phases. This has been preceded by acceptance in principle of the board's recommendation that in preference to the Lyngford site, which it considered costly to develop, a site known as Nerrels Farm, adjacent to the Lyngford site, should be acquired.
Under the building procedures the next stage called for a submission by the board on matters such as the general shape of the proposed building and the phases by which it would be provided. At the board's request a meeting was held in March 1973 to discuss the difficulties of the very large first phase of building which the board had under consideration and the effect that these difficulties would have on the board's capital building programme.
It was then agreed that the board should review the phasing proposals and other aspects of its plan with a view to reducing the overall size of the district general hospital and in particular the size of the first phase. The planning submission subsequently received proposes that the original large first phase of 676 beds plus supporting departments and services should be subphased, and the new immediate scheme—phase 1A—should provide 344 beds plus outpatient department, accident and emergency department, operating theatres, X-ray and other support departments.
At a current cost of £10 million for building and engineering works this, however, still represents considerable capital investment, and it is questionable whether, with the addition of the cost of the new site and of fees and equipment, perhaps reaching a total approaching £15 million, it should and could be applied to one site in the region.
Factors to be taken into consideration include the uncertainty about the capital resources likely to be available during the period in question, 1976–77 to 1982–83; current capital commitments arising from starts on major developments at Barnstable and Plymouth which will not be completed for several years; the need for capital for other schemes, including Weston District General Hospital which takes precedence over Taunton and is ready to start as soon as capital is available; the latest time which would elapse before any benefit would be available to patients at Taunton; and the fact that

contracts of more than four years' duration tend to present management difficulties in the execution of the work and to involve large claims.
The Department accepts the need for a new district general hospital in Taunton. Detailed discussions with officers of the regional health authority are continuing on the building proposals put forward by the former regional hospital board. These include discussion of the apparently high acute bed rates used, aspects of the proposed geriatric and psychiatric provision such as the distribution between the district general hospital and other hospitals and the priority to be given to these provisions, and the need for laundry provisions to be sited at the district general hospital.
Meanwhile the South Western Regional Health Authority is reviewing the factors which I have already mentioned and it will then consider, in the light of future capital resources, when these are known, the future development of hospital services at Taunton. A number of options could be considered including a smaller initial scheme on the previously proposed site at Lyngford or further examination of the earlier proposal to develop the existing, perhaps enlarged, site at Musgrove Park.
I hope that the explanation I have given will clarify the current situation about hospital provision in the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members. I repeat that there is no argument whatever in principle and that the problem is one of priorities. The Government must and do accept responsibility for the amount of resources made available to National Health Service. In the present economic circumstances this must unfortunately be less than we would wish. However, the amounts allocated to the South Western Regional Health Authority are equitable bearing in mind the needs of other parts of the country.
It is the onerous and unenviable task of the South Western Regional Health Authority to use to the best of its ability the funds we have allocated. Ministers must not usurp this responsibility. To do so would run counter to our policy of giving the new health authorities the maximum autonomy consistent with national policies.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and his right hon. Friend kindly referred to my personal concern with the problems of the disabled and the elderly. I shall of course ensure that my ministerial colleague with special responsibility for health is fully aware of the many points which have been raised this evening. I shall also convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the hon. Member's suggestion that she should visit Weston-super-Mare. I know that the right hon. Gentleman also suggested a visit to Taunton and I recall that when his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State visted Taunton last year he conceded that he was the biggest slum landlord in the country.
Right hon. and hon. Members may rest assured that full consideration will be given to all that has been said in the debate on this matter. I am grateful to those who have spoken for having raised this extremely important issue.

Orders of the Day — MOTORWAY NOISE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Nine hon. Members wish to speak in the debate on this topic, and I hope that both Front Bench and back bench Members will bear other hon. Members in mind.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I was going to say that there was no truth in the rumour that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides were trying to prevent subject No. 7 in Mr. Speaker's Ballot being reached, but it would appear that that might after all be the case. However, I shall not take more than 10 minutes. If I have not finished my remarks in that time, I shall sit down.
As I have told the House previously, the motorway in Birmingham runs right through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). Both constituencies are heavily built-up areas and within them there are 6,000 homes within 300 yards of the motorway. The noise level experienced by our constituents is intolerable at certain times. One has to

be there to know what it is like. I live a quarter of a mile from Spaghetti Junction and so I have some experience of the noise. At about 4 a.m. each day the surge of noise of heavy goods vehicles starts. It is literally driving many people out of house and home.
Certain improvements have been and are being made. A noise barrier erected on part of the motorway has had a beneficial effect to a certain extent, and following repeated representations which I have made to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment I am confident that further improvements will be forthcoming. However, there is no doubt that the motorway will remain a fact of life for my constituents even though for many of them it is not desirable.
At a recent conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects at Durham University two transport experts from the OECD told delegates that motor traffic in particular would be more strictly controlled in the future and that strategic plans for transport in urban areas would be drawn up with regard to the environment and the best use of land. The phrase "with regard to the environment" is fine-sounding stuff. A motorway and its effect on the environment can mean many things to many people. To my constituents it means noise and dust pollution. For country dwellers it can mean, for example, changing a cattle track. For the large-scale landowner it can mean losing a few acres from a holding of many thousand acres.
As a "Brummy", I would be the last person to say that the citizens of Birmingham did not want motorways. They realise that the economic survival of Birmingham rests to a large extent on the motor industry, both at present and for the foreseeable future. We are not against motorways in general, but we are against those at the bottom of our gardens, which is the case in my constituency.
The noise regulations made in 1973, upon which great stress was laid in the previous Parliament by my predecessor and by the previous Government, held out some hope for my constituents. A noise contour map was drawn up and published and many homes were visited. All the people involved thought that they would get double glazing, but it is now


found that they will not all qualify for it.
The regulations state that a living room and a bedroom are eligible for special consideration, but there is no mention of a kitchen in this respect. The position of a kitchen in a house can also affect eligibility for special consideration, and in my constituency many houses are not eligible for double glazing because of the position of the kitchen in relation to the motorway. Some homes that are only 35 ft. from the motorway do not have double glazing.
There is an anomaly in the regulations which I find it difficult to explain to my constituents. Bedrooms which face the motorway get double glazing but in some houses the lounge which is 3 ft below does not, simply because a theoretician has worked out the noise contours and predicted that noise will be slightly less in the lower storey. This takes some believing. It would remove anomalies if the definition of eligible rooms were changed and if the lower storey were eligible automatically whenever the upper storey was eligible. All the houses that I am concerned about have two storeys.
The civil servants forecast that part of the motorway system, particularly in the Midlands, will be at saturation level in 15 years. Judging from. other Civil Service forecasts, that means that it will probably be at saturation point in half that time. The motorway police, whose control headquarters is in my constituency, say that 90 per cent. of the saturation level of 100,000 vehicles a day has been reached on some days. Therefore, in the near future the planners will try to impose a second motorway system. I and many others in the West Midlands will oppose that. The missing links of the present system should be supplied to make it viable, and a completely new system would be the height of folly.
The answer, as always, is to make more use of the railways, which do not pollute the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who is a former railway-man, will be able to elaborate on that. The pro-motorway lobby favours such a shift, as I learned when I drank its whisky at a reception in the House the other week. British Leyland factories are linked by a rail network, and that is a firm which depends for its survival on

motor cars. If we took that approach in national planning, we should be far better off.
I should like to raise another matter which my constituents have been putting to me over the past three or four weeks. I have referred to the conference of the RIBA. It is a discredit to the institute and it disgusts the citizens of Birmingham that our former city architect has just started a two-year gaol sentence for bribery and corruption. What adds insult to injury is that this man, who took £18,000 in bribes, is entitled to a pension of £6,000 because of the way in which local government was reorganised. First we have the problem of the motorways in Birmingham, in which the Department had a hand, and then we find that the guy who ran matters was a crook and that when he is put away the ratepayers have to pay out his pension while he is in gaol.
I am sorry if that last subject was a little outside this debate, but I have had nearly as many letters on that score as I have had about hare coursing.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on having a good point and making it briefly. Unfortunately those who needed his good example had already left the Chamber. I at least shall profit from it and certainly be brief. My constituents have a motorway, and in principle they, too, like it, but again it runs at the foot of some of their gardens. That in itself would not arouse their hostility, but unfortunately this is a rather special bit of motorway. It is the three and a half miles of the Gerrards Cross bypass on the M40. The Department of the Environment decided it would be a good thing to provide a special surface which would reduce splashing from cars in wet weather and provide excellent non-skid properties.
The road was made, therefore, of concrete with grooves in the surface. This has been tried on the M1.

Mr. John Stanley: And on M20.

Mr. Bell: On the M1 the grooves were at regular distances, and the whine they set up could have been compared with


the debate immediately preceding this one. There are signs on the motorway saying "Tyre noise", not "Tired noise" as we had a moment ago. The regularity of the spacing of the grooves produces a most unpleasant high-pitched whine. In order to avoid that on the M40, a new system of random grooving was tried and by that system the grooves were laid according to a pattern where the spacing was irregular. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) will find that this is what has been done on M20 also. That has altered the pitch of the whine, but my constituents still do not like it any better than people living near the M1 like theirs.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, knows all about the trouble on M40 because it is to him that we have addressed our complaints in the past. To be fair, I know that he is considering it.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I have great sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend is saying. Is he aware that even for motorists coming on to this surface for the first time it is a very disturbing experience? The steering suddenly becomes extremely rough. The first time I experienced it I thought I had a puncture.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am talking about the effect on my constituents, but the effect on the motorist is also very unpleasant and it creates unpleasant noise inside the car. The whole car shakes and I should think that in the long term it could damage a vehicle. The wear on the tyres must be greatly increased.
However, it is primarily the effect on the householders living in the vicinity that worries me. One of the characteristics of this noise is that it seems to carry a long way from the motorway, and people tell me that even as much as half or three-quarters of a mile away their lives can be dominated in anything but the windiest weather by the whine from the random grooving.
This week's edition of the Motor, which is a periodical dedicated more to motor-

ing than to the troubles of people living in houses, states:
Anyone who has experienced the blinding curtain of spray that vehicles can put up when travelling on a wet motorway can only be in favour of removing that dangerous hazard. But equally important is the need to conserve a reasonable environment. The environment created by randomly spaced transverse concrete grooving is totally unacceptable.
That piece by a staff writer in the Motor describes what my constituents are experiencing.
I am assured by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is carrying out experiments to find a pervious surface which will also offer the advantage of channel-ling away the surface water, offer good anti-skid properties and not make this abominable noise.
I ask the Minister two things. First, will he use his good offices with his right hon. Friend and tell him that tonight I have raised again those matters that I have raised with him before and that I want to emphasise the urgency, the damage to the environment and the eventual cost in money if the road is not resurfaced? It is clear that the claims for compensation under the recent Land Compensation Act will be massive, and it would be cheaper to resurface the three miles of motorway at a cost of £250,000. The claims under the Act will add up to more than that, so on this occasion public money can actually be saved.
The other and lesser thing is to ask that the report of the investigation by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory should not be kept confidential but should be made available to all those interested in the subject, so that we may know what it recommends as a best surface and we need not be content with a second best that is so damaging to the interests of our constituents.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Like the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Roker) on being successful in the Ballot and raising a subject of great importance to many people, one which vitally affects his constituents and mine. Mine are probably the more affected, because in my constituency there is not merely one


motorway, the M6, which passes right through the urban area of Birmingham, but several motorways converging in what is called the Gravelly Hill interchange, described less reverently by some as Spaghetti Junction. Therefore, many hundreds of my constituents are affected, and are cursed by the noise. They are affected by the vision of this monstrosity and by the pollution and smoke. They are now even concerned about lead, a new hazard, which may or may not be serious but which is being investigated.
The Government and the House should establish as a principle that when a new motorway is put into operation the highway authority, whether the Government or the local authority, will bear the whole of the social cost. That means not only the depreciation in the value of the property but the cost of making right as far as they can, and mitigating as far as they can, the evils of the motorway by every available for of noise insulation and filter that can be used to deal with the pollutants. That should be a principle in the construction of new roads in order that not merely the convenience of the motorist but the inconvenience caused to ordinary citizens is considered.
There is no doubt that the M6 link-way in Birmingham is a great blessing to motorists travelling between London and the South and the North-West. But it is a curse to the inhabitant and the full cost should be assessed in real terms. The Government should be prepared to bear the whole of the costs.
The Land Compensation Act was an advance on what went before but it is nowhere near adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr mentioned double glazing and extractors which will be provided in only a certain number of cases where the decibel limit is fulfilled. In any event, I believe that the present allowable level of decibels is too high and that people can have an intolerable life with something very much lower than the level now allowed under the regulations.
Like my hon. Friend I ask that the level of compensation should be considered again notwithstanding present Government stringency. The present limit is £1,500. That is not adequate to cover the depreciation of the houses con-

cerned. Let us not forget that very often these houses may represent the whole of a working man's capital. Therefore, we cannot say that the amenity value or other matters should be excluded. The whole problem should be reconsidered.
Next, let us consider noise insulation. Will the Minister tell us how much progress is being made with noise barriers, I approached one of his ministerial colleagues some time ago about the erection of a noise barrier at the Gravelly Hill interchange and the impact that the noise and vibration is having on the houses nearby. I am still awaiting a reply, but I hope that the Minister will say something about that today.
I understand that a barrier introduced in my hon. Friend's constituency of Perry Barr has been reasonably successful in eliminating a fair amount of noise and making, to some extent, conditions tolerable. I want to know whether the same will be done at the Gravelly Hill interchange. I understand that there are some difficulties but I hope that we shall have a reply tonight. Further, I am hoping that the whole matter will be reviewed by the Government and that they will not be content with the limitations of the Land Compensation Act. I hope that they will do what they can to mitigate the conditions of life in which hundreds of my constituents and constituents of my right hon. Friend live.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising what is a modern and a difficult topic with which many of us are concerned. He has depicted only too clearly some of the discordant things which are in store for some of my constituents. In my constituency the North Orbital M25 motorway is under construction. The residents who went to live in the area some time ago went to live in a part of the country which was regarded and officially designated as an area of great natural beauty. They recognised that there was a noise level in the area which I understand could accurately and mathematically be described as 38 decibels. That was an attractive feature.
When the plans were announced for the construction of the motorway there was considerable local discussion. I think that it was generally agreed that there was a need for the motorway to relieve traffic from some of the country roads of Hertfordshire. It was recognised that it was best that traffic should move laterally. The residents took part in the discussions. They received certain undertakings which they were glad to receive and which they valued.
Now that the motorway is under construction the residents are facing noise pollution of a level which they did not dream. They think that it is a sign of things to come. We have had the pleasure of readings being taken in the course of construction and the noise level is between 70 and 76 decibels compared with the previous 38 decibels. It should not be overlooked that such increases do not progress on an arithmetical basis but are geometric, and a difference of 10 can be regarded as a major social inconvenience.
What do we mean by "decibel levels"? The first level quoted when I tried to get some information was a quiet London room at midnight—32. The next level up was suggested as being a soft whisper at 5 ft., whether or not in the quiet London room at midnight, I do not know, but it was put at 34. The vacuum cleaner at 10 ft. was put at 69. If one sits in the compartment of a suburban electric train, the decibel level will be 76. Thus, for 12 to 15 hours a day people are being subjected to a noise level comparable with that experienced in travelling permanently in a suburban electric train.
Again, if one is standing at a railway station, a passing inter-city express gives a noise level of about 95. The M3 survey recently showed a massive increase in noise levels of over 100 per cent. at a distance of between 30 and 100 metres, based on an 18–hour noise-level day. That does not look like a happy augury for those living close to the M25.
It is also unfortunate that, because of its geology, the valley acts as an echo chamber and residents have had the added attraction of transistor radios being heard three-quarters of a mile away, together with pile-drivers, general wagon works, and so on, in progress.
What can be done? We must continue the excellent work carried out on the landscaping of motorways. We have contributed internationally in this work. But we have to think about what one might call international sound landscaping. The use of trees and banking can be extremely valuable, certainly in rural areas. For example, a number of 80 ft. beech trees were taken down almost overnight and burnt, the effect being to remove the what would have been a sound barrier and certainly a sight barrier. There has been a failure in some areas to construct the banking which would have prevented sound from travelling and polluting. For some curious reason, although undertakings have been given to build sound barriers, many have not been built by the contractors.
It has also been suggested that attention should be paid to road surfacing materials in use. I do not like the prospect of the M20 type of surfacing being used again, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is not used again on the M25. We would be grateful for that.
I have received two petitions and have had constant correspondence with the Department. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive a deputation of those concerned, recognising the need for the motorway but also the need to minimise inconvenience and pollution for those near by.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Snape: This is the second occasion within 10 days on which I have had the opportunity to bring before the House the problems of noise and pollution caused by urban motorways, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for it. I make no apology for speaking about it again. It is an important matter. Although it is a general problem, it relates particularly to the West Midlands. In his last annual report to the former borough of West Bromwich, the then Chief Public Health Inspector, Mr. Stanley Cayton, stated that
…noise levels had already exceeded the recommended maximum for comfortable living.
The residents in my constituency affected by urban motorways will certainly agree. They frequently write to tell me about what they call "the living hell"


on their doorsteps—the thundering traffic which makes an unbroken night's sleep a half-forgotten memory and the belching exhaust fumes which transform the brightest summer's day into a grey dis-spiriting smog. They tell me about the impossibility of a normal conversation due to the ever-present noise; about the windows which must be kept permanently closed because of the dirt and fumes; about the washing which must be dried indoors or in a friendly neighbour's garden, because to hang it in their own garden would turn the whitest of whites into a dull shade of grey.
I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members who represent other parts of the country could say exactly the same about the problems of urban motorways, but I feel that in some ways West Bromwich is uniquely placed—if that is the right term—in relation to the general motorway structure. We have within the area the link of the M5 and M6, and just across the border is the Spaghetti Junction link and the link between the M6 and MI motorways. The sheer volume of traffic in our area, especially at this time of the year, makes the situation virtually unbearable.
The residents say that they can no longer tolerate a situation in which they and their children must swallow sleeping pills in order to get a good night's sleep. When a local doctor states that children in our area must expect to have recurring sore throats, surely some sort of action is long overdue from the Department of the Environment.
Of course, the problem does not begin and end with the motorways. A town such as West Bromwich must also face the extra traffic passing to and from the motorways and motorway link roads. West Bromwich council, before the re-organisation of local government, took some noise readings along a number of major roads in the borough. The limit of 68 decibels laid down in the building and noise regulations in 1973 was exceeded in virtually every case. Along some of the main roads in the borough the average reading, over a limited period of time, was over 80 decibels. In Scott Street, West Bromwich, for example, a 68-year-old pensioner has said to me "I might as well throw away my alarm clock. I can do without it." When the heavy Iorries start grinding past her bedroom

window at about 4 o'clock in the morning, she is immediately awakened. There then follow three main noise peaks: the 7 a.m. start of the morning rush hour; between 12 noon and 2 p.m.; and between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. This pensioner tells me that she and her 71-year-old husband never go to bed before 10.30 p.m. because it is impossible to get to sleep.
The residents affected are fighting and have been fighting for what they consider, as I do, to be their rights. At the beginning of May 1974 I understand that there were almost 900 rate appeals from residents affected by motorway noise heard by the West Bromwich-based South Staffordshire Valuation Panel. I understand that the highest reduction for motorway noise before that panel so far has been 12½ per cent. Residents, however, go on to complain that they appear to have been forgotten in relation to the double glazing procedures. Only a small proportion of the applicants have so far been approached.
The problem, however, does not end with double glazing or with any other aid to reduce noise levels. It is about time that the problem was tackled at source. Heavy freight traffic must be shifted from our suburban and residential roads, either on to the railways or on to a national network of lorry routes, or both. It is surely time that the section in the Transport Act 1968 dealing with quantity licensing was activated. It should be necessary for road hauliers to prove that a load travelling more than a certain distance cannot be equally well carried by rail, as it was said was intended under the Transport Act 1968. My constituents feel that it is about time that the heavy goods vehicle was banished from our towns and cities and that they were able to get a good night's rest, peace of mind and the environment they deserve.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: I would like to join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his excellent choice of subject, bringing home to the House and I hope the country the serious plight of, I suspect, tens of thousands of people living adjacent to motorways throughout the length and breadth of the country.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and asked for the improvement and amendment of that Act. I do not dissent from that, but I do point out that that Act represented a major advance. Prior to that Act there was no injurious affection compensation and no statutory entitlement to soundproofing. In its way that legislation was as important in an environmental advance as, for instance, the Clean Air Act, 1956. I hope that as a result of the 1973 Act it will never again be possible to construct houses and motorways in such abysmally close proximity as they are, for example, in my constituency. Certainly there are similar examples in other constituencies.
My constituency contains the first completed section of the M20. This runs through a built-up area to the west of Maidstone, through the parishes of Aylesford, Larkfield and Ditton, where over the past 12 years, about 10,000 people, principally owner-occupiers, have acquired homes. The M20 is already a busy stretch of motorway yet the build-up of traffic is only just beginning.
With or without the Channel Tunnel, this piece of motorway will bear the brunt of road-borne traffic between this country and the Continent. It links up with the M25, M4, M3, M1 and M11. This road is in its infancy. I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House the environmental conditions facing people living adjacent to the motorway. Is the Minister aware that as a result of an appalling piece of planning folly this motorway has been constructed within 30 feet of existing houses? Is he also aware that that folly has been compounded by the use of corrugated concrete for the road surface? This gives off an appalling high-pitched tyre whine, accentuated at times of wet weather and very much more environmentally damaging than a conventional tarmac surface. Should this sort of surface be used at all on sections of motorway going through residential areas?
Is he further aware that even though this motorway is in its infancy, people adjacent to it have to sleep with their windows tightly closed simply because of the noise, even in the heat of the summer? Is he aware that children and adults are

having recourse to sleeping tablets? What sort of progress is it when the construction of new motorways means that people have to do this? Is it not an example of the way in which so-called progress can be highly retrograde? I ask the Minister to convey to his right hon. and hon. Friends my wish that they should experience the conditions suffered by my constituents.
If during the recess he should be coming to Kent, I hope he will notify me. I should be delighted to take him to the houses concerned, particularly to the bedrooms, so that he may hear the noise levels being suffered. I believe that Ministers should listen to these levels and experience the conditions which people are enduring day and night.
I wish to put three practical propositions to the Minister. First, I implore him to ensure that there is the most generous possible interpretation of the compensation provisions for injurious affection and of the soundproofing provisions in the Land Compensation Act. We have not yet had our list of houses to be soundproofed. It is due by the statutory dateline of 1st September. I was disturbed to hear what the hon. Member for Perry Barr said on this matter. If the Department interprets the soundproofing provisions of the Land Compensation Act in a cheeseparing, mealy-mouthed, penny-pinching way, I and many other hon. Members will come down on the Minister like a ton of bricks to ensure that they are generously interpreted.
Under the legislation, the Minister is obligated to take into account not only existing but future traffic levels. I shall be able to demonstrate a huge increase in prospective traffic on the M20. If the Minister finds his budget under the Estimates which we are discussing to be insufficient to make generous soundproofing provision, I hope that he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate which I feel sure will be warmly supported on both sides of the House.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to refer to the Minister for Transport the fact that I presented him with a large petition a few months ago on the construction of a sound-reduction barrier on the M20 similar to the experimental sections which exist along the M4 and M6. We have an


acute need for such a barrier, or certainly a feasibility study into such a barrier, on the M20 running through my constituency. Since the petition, we have heard nothing from the Minister. I shall be grateful if he will tell us whether he has any news about departmental action on the provision of a sound-reduction barrier along this section of the M20.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to consider a further possibility. Some of my constituents occupy houses which are so close to the M20—which will be as intensively used as any road in Europe in 10 or 15 years—that by any reasonable environmental standards they will be rendered unfit for habitation, even with soundproofing. The soundproofing does not provide any benefit to people's gardens. In fact, the word "garden" has become a mockery in relation to some of the houses. Though soundproofing serves to reduce the noise impact in the houses, the noise is not by any means eliminated. As the traffic builds up, some of the houses will be rendered unfit for habitation.
It may be the wish of some of my constituents who are worst affected to go to the Department and ask it to acquire their properties. The Department has the strongest possible moral obligation to respond positively to their request. In the nineteenth century houses were built which in this century have been declared unfit for habitation on public health grounds. In the last 10 or 15 years houses have been constructed and then rendered unfit for human habitation on health grounds because of the intense noise suffered in them. By the same token, just as the community bought out the nineteenth century houses which had been declared unfit, so the community has an obligation to buy twentieth century houses when they are rendered unfit by reason of the convenience of the motorised public.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Tomlinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for having had the good fortune and the initiative to raise this important subject. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the problems which are caused to my constituents by the M6 and will be caused by the proposed M42. The M6 runs close to the large

Birmingham overspill estate of Chelmsley Wood and gives rise to considerable concern among many of my constituents. As it goes north from Chelmsley Wood it runs to the west of the pleasant village of Water Orton.
The noise and pollution caused by the M6 have been accepted as part of the price of modern developments, but the electors of Water Orton, having already suffered pollution and noise from the motorway to the west of the village, are concerned that at its nearest point the M42 is to run 30 feet away from the east side of the village. That would be bad enough, but the planners want to compound the damage by building an M6/M42 link round the south side of the village. What was a pleasant residential area will become the centre of motorways running to the east, west and south.
I am disturbed about the procedures within the Department of the Environment. At the beginning of June in a Written Question I asked my right hon. Friend about the structure plan as it affected Water Orton. I was told that my right hon. Friend hoped to be able to send his proposed modifications and reservations to the county planning authorities concerned during the summer. It therefore appears that we might get the structure plan for the county, including Water Orton, well before we get the detailed proposals for the line of route of the motorway.
The line of route has been challenged by the Water Orton Parish Council, members of which went to see the Minister and put before him nine alternative routes. In reply to a Written Question last month I was told that my right hon. Friend would probably be able to make a statement on the line of route before the end of this month. There are two days to go, and I hope that answer will be forthcoming so that before the House rises the people in my constituency will know the line of route and exactly what are their prospects. Uncertainty has been hanging over the village like the sword of Damocles for a long time.
I hope that the Minister will find it intolerable to compound the environmental damage done by the M6 by putting the M42 on the other side of the village and linking the M6 and the M4 on the south side, thus boxing in a small


village on three sides—all in the name of progress.
The general problem is much wider although Water Orton highlights it. People who live in Birmingham seek refuge from urban life by going out to the villages in my constituency. Yet the building of roads to allow them to go into the rural villages destroys what they go into the country to find. For example, the pleasant village of Birchmoor is being cut in half by a proposed motorway. I hope that we shall not divorce the problem from the need to secure a much more integrated approach to transport.
In my constituency we are tearing the guts out of some of the finest parts of rural England in order to create motorways. At the same time we have a railway network which barely stops at the numerous halts along the line. I hope that the Department of the Environment will take more seriously than in the past the need to reopen some of the halts along existing railway lines. I refer, for example, to lines such as the one from Nuneaton to Birmingham. Trains run along these lines with monotonous regularity but they fail to serve those who live in the area with anything like the requisite regularity. For example, the railway line runs through the village of Whitacre, but because trains do not stop there my constituents have to use their cars to get into the town.
I hope that serious consideration will be given to these and similar problems. The railway line is still in existence from London to Birmingham and Tam-worth to Birmingham, but even in times when we are facing an acute fuel crisis and we are concerned about energy problems empty trains still travel through areas in my constituency and local inhabitants have to use their cars to travel into the cities. This leads to further congestion of already overburdened roads in city centres such as Birmingham, with all the use of expensive fuel and energy resources that is involved. This in turn leads to the justification for more motorways. It is all part of a vicious circle that must be ended.
Furthermore, there is the growing problem in taking people from their place of residence to their work or to their recreation at weekends. There is also the need to divert unnecessary goods vehicles away

from the roads on to the railway system. To do this would not only be of great benefit to people whose lives are disturbed by the continuous drone of heavy goods vehicles but would be of great assistance for the railway services. It would provide much valuable revenue that is now being lost to the railway services. I hope that the Department of the Environment will look carefully at some of these problems and find solutions that will be to the advantage of the Department as well as of my constituents.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on raising this important subject. Although the hon. Gentleman dealt with the general subject of noise from motorways, he also gave particular prominence to the subject of motor vehicle noise. It is fair to say that motor vehicle noise is the greatest single irritant to people in this country—even greater than the problems which beset those of us who live under the flight paths to London Airport. We comprise a small number of people against the vast number who every day of their lives in one way or the other find motor vehicle noise unavoidable and therefore a continuous and ever-present curse.
We in this House are often guilty of uttering too many pious platitudes about how successful we are in curbing noise nuisance. We fall back on the Motor Vehicle Regulations of 1971 as being the last word on the subject of vehicle noise. But I think I count myself lucky in not being in the position of those hon. Members and their constituents who find themselves a few hundred yards from a motorway. They know what vehicle noise is really like. I believe that the only way to give them relief is to bring down vehicle noise to an acceptable level. That is the global remedy, which could be achieved if we put our backs into the problem.
When I cast some doubt upon the wisdom of holding on to the 1971 Motor Vehicle Regulations as if they were the last word, I remind the Minister that they are based on that famous report on Noise by Sir Alan Wilson in 1963 in which he told us the noise levels which he thought could be achieved by motor vehicles. Even the levels set in 1963


apparently are unachievable in 1971 and, for all I know, no one seems to be giving much attention to achieving them in 1974 or 1975, let alone looking forward.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether we should go on relying on those levels or whether it does not behove us to put more pressure on the manufacturers of motor vehicles to achieve better levels, because that at least would bring instantaneous relief from the vehicles coming out of their factories.
This debate is about noise from motorways. It is true that noise from motorways is both objectionable and to be objected to, but it is also fair to say that in discussing noise from motorways we should not assume that that is where the principal motor vehicle noise is to be found and that there is not a Cinderella in the whole case on which for a few moments I wish to touch.
Admittedly, I have a motorway in my constituency. The M4 bisects the constituency completely. But only one of my villages, the village of Theale, experiences any real irritation, and that only marginal. However, the M4, which goes through some beautiful countryside and causes so little disturbance to so few people, has three turn-offs each of which feeds into my constituency. They are the turn-off at Theale, the turn-off into Newbury and the turn-off into Hunger-ford.
The Newbury turn-off joins the A34, which is a trunk road. However, a motorway is a special road only in so far as it is designated as such. Therefore, a trunk road could become a motorway were it designated as such by the Ministry. For that reason, I wish to ask the Minister about the A34.
It is being improved to become the main traffic route from the industrial Midlands to Southampton Docks. As one looks at the improvement which is taking place on both sides of Newbury, one is impressed by the fact that the road looks like becoming something very near to a motorway. Indeed the Minister may say that it is the intention of his Department so to designate it. If it is, perhaps I may stay on the subject for a moment and ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions about it.
We know the A34's improved route from the north to Newbury and to the south away from Newbury. What we do not know is the route which has been ldesignated to go from Newbury and to ink up with the South. At the moment, as the road is improved, we are seeing a much larger volume of traffic coming from the North, into the ring road which we have in Newbury, and causing congestion. As the road improves, the congestion increases. Judging by what we have seen this summer, we have considerable concern by next summer about the congestion that we shall face in the town of Newbury, especially at the St. John's Road roundabout. As it is, we foresee a mass of juggernaut lorries heading for Southampton Docks, and we wonder what sort of conditions they will create for local motorists and local commercial vehicles.
We wonder, too, whether, just because the A34 is so far a trunk road, we come under the compensation Acts which have been referred to in the debate, especially the Land Compensation Act 1973. Does it give cover to those who suffer from what might be described as motorway traffic on a trunk road or does one have to live next to an M-route to get these benefits?
I raise the question of trunk roads, and in particular that trunk road, because it would not be fair if we kept all our sympathy for those who suffer from motorway traffic and forgot those who suffer from something so nearly equivalent that they might feel they came off rather worse.
I want to return to some of the points that have been made in the debate, particularly barriers. I sought to find such parliamentary Questions and Answers as might have arisen in the last two or three years on this matter because I recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) saying something about barriers. The only Question that I could run to earth was in March 1972 when, in reply, the then junior Minister said that research was being actively pursued, and he referred to the Urban Motorways Committee which was looking into the problem. Has the Minister had a report from that committee? If so, what does it say and has he any plans to publish it?
I think that I ought to return to the question of noise levels and to a point which I made only 10 days ago when I referred to the noise meters which are designated in the motor vehicle regulations as the proper way of deciding whether a motor vehicle is creating an unacceptable level of noise over and above what is laid down in the regulations.
I asked the chief superintendent at Newbury police station whether the police possessed a noise meter. He told me, "No, we do not. We do not have one, because, frankly, a noise meter is impractical." It does not need me to tell the Minister that there are only 26 of these meters in the 57 counties of England and Wales—only 26, for the simple reason that they cannot be used. It therefore follows that if someone is prosecuted for a noise offence because a policeman thinks that the noise is unacceptable, his defence counsel will certainly ask the officer, "Did you take a reading on your meter and, if so, what did it register?" The answer will be, "We have not got a meter", to which defence counsel will then make the point, "If you have not got a meter, how do you know that the noise was unacceptable?" The result is a falling off in noise prosecutions.
I suggest that we are getting a higher rate of noise level in this country from motor vehicles than we have had in past years simply because we cannot enforce these regulations, which in themselves are fairly lax. Has the Minister considered dropping that part of the regulations altogether and going over to some new approach? Why not create something in the regulations which would allow a different kind of noise meter to be used, one that is practical and that can be used by police forces throughout the country, or, if he cannot find such a meter, why not go back to the evidence of our ears? Then, if a policeman genuinely believes he has heard a vehicle that is too noisy, he should have the right to make that vehicle go to the police station to be tested and, if found to have exceeded the noise levels, to be impounded on payment of a fine and until such time as it is corrected and can go back on the road in an acceptable condition.
The Minister may be saying to me under his breath, "But how would you enforce that? How will you catch these

motor vehicles on motorways?" What about a noise trap? We have a radar speed trap. We worry ourselves to death about speeding. Let us also worry ourselves to death about those vehicles that cause so much nuisance to so many people because they are inefficiently and improperly run. Let us have noise traps and, if need be, noise stations at the urban ends of motorways into which we can run these vehicles and test them. I am sure that when we have had a few prosecutions for noise offences we shall see a difference in attitudes to noise among those who own and run commercial vehicles.
I come back to the question of barriers. From what I heard earlier, one hon. Member has suggested that a barrier had already been put up. If so, I should like to know how far the extension of barriers is intended to go. When I drive on the M4 I can see no sign of a noise barrier anywhere between Newbury and the beginning of the Cromwell Road extension. If we have such barriers, I should like to think that they will be used extensively.
I do not suggest that any of my suggestions will not cost money. I know they will. But I also know that vehicle manufacturers can curb the noise level, particularly of commercial vehicles. And who knows, the price of petrol may be the magic wand. If we had electric vehicles in wide use, we would at long last have achieved silent vehicles. We would not need noise barriers, but we would have a much better environment.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his good fortune in securing this debate and on the topic he has chosen.
I am very concerned about the proposed Aire Valley motorway from Shipley to Snay Hill, near Skipton, which will pass through my constituency of Keighley. Clearly there is an argument that the construction of a motorway will reduce the level of noise on the existing A629-A650 trunk road. On the other hand, the motorway will create a noise path and the motorway is not designed to relieve local traffic So the existing trunk road will be carrying a considerable amount of traffic whether or not the motorway is present.
I have in my hand a report by the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council which says in paragraph 28 of Appendix 4:
The noise reduction on the existing road will be barely noticeable but the noise from the new route will be additional.
This is an argument which was put to the directorate. It says:
It is predicted that two-third; of the traffic will be diverted off the existing road which should produce a noticeable reduction but it is accepted that the new route represents an additional noise corridor.
Incidentally, the predictions that are mentioned are nowhere clarified. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the predicted effects of the traffic on the existing trunk road and the expected traffic level to be carried on the proposed Aire Valley motorway. I did not receive an answer. These matters are, apparently, shrouded in secrecy until a public inquiry is held when these predictions will be disclosed.
Consultants are mentioned—
Consultants were engaged by the Road Construction Unit to investigate likely noise and environmental problems and have made recommendations to minimise the impact.
of the proposed Aire Valley motorway. Unfortunately the results of the deliberations of the consultants are nowhere to hand and in the locality they are rather difficult to find. Anybody likely to be affected by the proposed motorway should certainly have the information arising from the deliberations of the consultants. To deprive people of that information is to withhold from them important information which is relevant to the case.
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) two schools will be badly affected by noise, to a much worse extent than a school in my constituency—Grange School—which is to be specially shielded from the noise levels of the proposed motorway—noise levels which the consultants have indicated but which, as I have already made clear, are not available to the general run of my constituents.
The noise level affecting Grange School will be so great that it is said, apparently without any great authenticity because of the lack of verification from the consultants' report, that no classes can be con-

ducted outside the school and the school might have to be specially double glazed, which will not lead to a very bright environmental future for that educational institution.
When I was on the local education committee it was decided, as a result of information and advice given by the then county planning officer, to move the proposed Swire Smith school which would have been adjacent to the Grange School to elsewhere within my constituency because of the effect of noise levels from the proposed motorway. No definite decision has yet been made on the design of a proposed noise barrier. It might be a concrete barrier or it might take the form of an earth mound. Whatever form it takes, it will probably mean an ugly visual intrusion upon the existing pleasant environment.
There is also concern about how the proposed motorway will affect people on the fringe area as against those who will he directly affected. Some dwellings may be quite close to the motorway, but because they will not be regarded as being directly affected they will remain in a sort of limbo. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this matter, referring to a particular house. He explained that
Unfortunately the law just does not permit us to acquire in advance properties, like 89 Florist Street—
the property I was concerned with—
which are affected by blight by proximity.
Noise is an important element of this blight.
Under Section 22 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 a property may be purchased by agreement if the enjoyment of that property is seriously affected by construction nuisance or by the use of a new road within one year of its opening. That implies blight by noise, which means that although there might be compensation at the end of 12 months a number of my constituents are placed in a planning limbo until the motorway is built—if it is built—and after it is opened they can experience further delay of up to 12 months.
This is not a happy position for many of my constituents. Some of the properties which will be affected are Victorian terraced houses, and many of the people


living in them are elderly and are disturbed about the situation. I believe that it is necessary to have a fresh look at the position. I should like the Department of the Environment to make a decision fairly soon one way or the other and ensure that a public inquiry is put under way.
The Stockbridge area of Keighley was under threat for a number of years before the preferred route of the motorway was published, even when it was merely a rumour. The preferred route has now been published and again the district is placed in limbo. People are becoming tired about the situation. They are living in a good area with good-quality housing, but the local authority is doing nothing in the area. Roads are increasingly getting into disrepair because the local authority, quite reasonably, asks what is the point in spending money if a motorway is to be built and the houses may have to come down.
There is also the compensation factor to consider. The district valuer says that the area is run down and that therefore the value of the houses is relatively low compared with houses in other areas which will not be affected by the motorway. This is extremely unfair and people would welcome a decision on the issue.
The question of cost is important. It has been suggested that in order to reduce noise and visual intrusion a section of the motorway in the Shipley constituency should be encased in a tunnel. This would mean an extra cost of £7 million, bringing the total cost to about £47 million, which in the present economic situation cannot be contemplated. In any

event there are projects of higher priority to be considered. There are two schools in my constituency which need replacing, and this type of expenditure is more important than the spending of £40 million to £50 million on motorways.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The hon. Member's experience is ahead of mine and I should be grateful for his advice. In my constituency we are dealing with the M40, for which a preferred route has not been decided. Has the hon. Gentleman been told by the Government that the up-to-date traffic predictions will be forthcoming when a public inquiry is held? I understand that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is up-dating its assumptions.

Mr. Cryer: I am told by the Department that the information which I requested will be presented if the Department thinks it relevant and necessary at the public inquiry. But that is often too late for critics to make a proper evaluation. It is wrong and unnecessary.
Noise could be avoided if we developed the existing Aire Valley with more "park and ride" stations. Traffic congestion on the existing trunk roads is great and generates noise. It could be reduced more easily and cheaply by bypasses, perhaps linked by an all-purpose trunk road. This would not intrude physically and visually as much as it does in a narrow valley which contains noise.
In our present economic situation we should decide quickly about this motorway. We should take a fresh look at traffic in the Aire Valley and thereby deal with some of the visual and aural intrusions of motorways.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that his constituents were not against all motorways, only those at the bottom of their gardens. That sums up the general attitude of large numbers of people in the same situation. It is a wise man who can say that a motorway will not run at the bottom of his garden in the next decade or so.
The time has come for the Department radically to reappraise its motorway policy. I was a member of the last administration. I make no secret of the fact that, as a constituency Member, I suggested to the then Secretary of State for the Environment a reappraisal of the Government's motorway policy. The un-sympathetic answer I received is reflected by the present Government. This is not a political point. The civil servants concerned with motorway construction seem to have been given their head. The matter has got beyond the politicians. It should come back to the House.
We should consider where we are going, how many motorways we need, bearing in mind fuel difficulties and pollution. Can we afford a further expansion of the motorway network? Like every hon. Member, I find motorways a great convenience. A delicate balance has to be struck, but it should be struck by Parliament and not left to the technicians and technocrats who forge new links.
My area suffers from the problem of a mini-motorway called the Kenilworth Eastern Bypass. It has been sought for years and it is useful because it takes heavy traffic from round about Warwick, bypassing Kenilworth and going on to the East Midlands and the M1. The only difficulty is that it has been constructed in large sections of ribbed or ridged concrete. Many hon. Members tonight have criticised this type of construction and I have had a series of complaints from constituents since the bypass was opened about one-and-a-half months ago.
It passes a village called Leek Wootton where a barrier has been constructed which is so far incomplete. It also passes a good residential district of Kenilworth. The whine is tremendous. I interrupted

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) to say that driving on this surface produces an unpleasant sensation if the driver is not used to it. One immediately gets the impression that something has gone wrong with the car, such as a puncture. Having experienced that and having listened at nearby houses to the interference, I can assure the Government that the noise nuisance is not insignificant, and that it creates environmental pollution which the Department should do something about.
I put a Question down for the Secretary of State the other day and was given an assurance that in future where motorways were constructed near areas of high density of population this construction would not be used. I hope there will be sympathetic consideration for areas where this type of surface already exists. Although I recognise that it will cost a fair amount of money to resurface those sections. I am sure that in the long run it will be cheaper than having to pay compensation to residents, which Parliament will inevitably sanction.

Mr. Tony Newton: In my constituency the A12 has this type of construction, and the situation has arisen in which drivers of heavy lorries find it so uncomfortable to drive on that they have gone back to the old road. We have, therefore, failed to remove the pollution caused by traffic on the original route.

Mr. Smith: I do not criticise those who were responsible for this construction. As so often in this life, it is a matter of trial and error. The motivation is good—it is to stop skidding and prevent accidents on roads—but while that is having some effect, the difficulties which arise for residents are so great that this type of construction will probably have to be dropped in the future. Most people feel that there should be a reappraisal of ribbed concrete.
I hope that we shall consider whether we have too many motorways. Like many hon. Members, I am concerned about the M40, which is projected from Birmingham to Oxford. It is first class for anyone wanting to drive fast from Oxford to Birmingham, but how many people will have to suffer on the way? The village of Hatton in my constituency will be severely affected if it goes as close to the houses as the


motorway which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) described. There is a further projection from Warwick via Banbury to Oxford which will affect the village of Bishops Tachbrook. People are understandably worried that this will come very close to their properties. Like the hon. Member for Perry Barr, they do not want a motorway at the bottom of their garden.
Having been in government, I know the problems. I know how difficult it is for the Department of the Environment to get the exact balance. I hope, however, that the debate will have emphasised there a great and growing body of people are desperately worried about the growth of motorways and the interference with their ordinary everyday life. If this goes on we may well find some kind of rebellion among those affected. I should like to see it nipped in the bud by the Government of the day.

10.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): Hon. Members on both sides of the House have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on selecting the subject of motorway noise for debate. I associate myself with those views and congratulate my hon. Friend on the lucidity with which he put his case. I also congratulate him on his persistence. He has raised the subject not only tonight but in the deliberations on the Control of Pollution Bill, and he has many times sought to reflect the concern of his constituents about the problem of noise emanating from motorways.
With his characteristic modesty, my hon. Fried suggested that the problem was noise from the motorway at the bottom of his garden. On the basis of the contributions from both sides of the House, I think that it is noise at the bottom of thousands of people's gardens. We have had concern about the M40, M1, M5, M6, M42 and M25. The widespread complaints are a matter of concern to the Department of the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that we share their concern about the problem.
At the same time I hope they will also accept that the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the noise insulation regulations provide positive action for dealing with the problem which has been the subject of concern this evening. The working and scope of the regulations are to be reviewed after a reasonable period of implementation, probably early next year.
My hon. Friend questioned the definition and criteria of residences which can benefit from the proposals for double glazing and compensation. He questioned the criteria for eligible rooms and suggested that kitchens might very well be covered in the regulations. He asked why kitchens are not covered by the noise regulations of 1973. I ask him to accept that when resources are strictly limited as at present, it is necessary to concentrate initially on the priority areas—namely, living rooms and bedrooms. It might be argued that a housewife spends much of her time in the kitchen, but that room is generally less susceptible to traffic noise than are living rooms and bed-rooms.
There are also technical difficulties about insulating kitchens. With an inlet fan it is difficult to prevent the spread of cooking smells and moist air from the kitchen, possibly with consequent condensation problems. Extractor ventilation is therefore required. Many kitchens, of course, contain heating appliances. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that central heating boilers require an air supply and that the use of extract ventilation increases the possibility of flue gas reversal and the release of toxic carbon monoxide into the dwelling. Those are some of the difficulties that we see in widening the criterion and including kitchens.
My hon. Friend made an additional point about certain circumstances in which upper storeys are accepted for noise insulation compensation and double glazing while the lower storey lounge room is rejected. The reason behind that apparent anomaly is, as my hon. Friend rightly indicated, a matter of noise contours. In some circumstances the noise can affect the upper storeys of a building while it does not affect the lounge to quite the same extent.
My hon. Friend also referred to properties in his constituency that he rightly described as being 35 ft. away from the


motorway. I am informed that he was referring to dwellings very close to the viaduct. I hope he will accept that the residents concerned have my sympathy. I am sure that my ministerial colleague, who I understand has agreed to meet a deputation led by my hon. Friend, will be prepared to consider any detailed evidence which my hon. Friend wishes to submit. Of course, a duty already exists to insulate residential properties within 300 metres of new roads and new carriageways affected by a specified level of traffic noise. But the suggestion that my hon. Friend made might possibly involve wasteful expenditure as it would require noise insulation to be provided where it was not needed as well as where it was needed.
The impact of noise on buildings near motorways depends on many factors, including the distance from the motorway—for example, local topography, the design of the motorway and the effects of any acoustic barriers. Many buildings within 300 metres of a motorway could be unaffected by noise and it would be found that there would be no justification for providing noise insulation for them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The Minister is displaying his sympathy and it is clear that he has a detailed brief, but if he would spend a night in one of the houses in his hon. Friend's constituency he would learn far more than anything that is contained in his brief. Will he agree in principle to do that? We would be quite happy whichever constituency he chose.

Mr. Morris: I am not seeking to minimise the real difficulties that residents have in the constituency of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) or in my hon. Friend's constituency. I can assure him that I live immediately on the side of the A6. Therefore, the problem of noise from traffic is not unknown to me at first hand during the day or during the night. I was dealing with the factors which affect the problem of noise and how to deal with it. An automatic requirement to provide insulation would be costly and could act as a disincentive to the erection of acoustic barriers and other design measures which might provide a better solution to the noise problem, since they would protect the outside environment,

including gardens, as well as the inside of properties.
There is the suggestion that in some way my ministerial colleagues and the Department are impervious to this problem, or that to some extent there has been a minimum of action. Let me indicate some of the action which has been taken by the Department since the Land Compensation Act came into operation in June 1973.
There has been the preparation of the noise maps indicating the properties affected by noise and the degree of the noise problem which individual residents are obliged to experience. Additionally, experimental noise barriers have been erected, particularly on the M6. Those on the M6 have cost about £60,000 and were provided to the extent of 600 metres on the north side and 1,000 metres on the south side, and they have brought about a reduction of up to 9dB(A), thereby reducing by nearly half the problem of noise, in this particular area. The consultant's reports on the effectiveness of this kind of barrier have been received and are under consideration in the Department.
It is true to say that motorways by common definition are intended to carry large volumes of fast-moving traffic. They serve to get through traffic away from the towns and other populated areas and free the people of those areas from the worst excesses of congestion and traffic noise. Motorways which have already been built are a major source of noise for the relatively few people obliged to live alongside them.
I want to explain the new approach to planning and designing of motorways. Recently, in line with the recommendations of the Urban Motorways Committee, important new measures have been introduced for the protection of people against the adverse effects of new motorway as well as other new and improved roads.
In selecting the route of a motorway, greater emphasis is being given to avoiding populated areas and building the motorways in such a way that they have a minimum adverse effect on their environment. In determining the line of a motorway, the effect of noise on existing and proposed development is an


important consideration. The public are being invited to participate in the choice of routes.

Mr. Cryer: In the interests of open government, will my hon. Friend ensure that copies of the consultants' reports, commissioned by the Road Construction Unit at Harrogate, which show noise levels and various environmental side effects, will be placed in the libraries of all districts affected by the proposals?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful for that suggestion, which I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
I was saying that in determining the line for a motorway the effect of noise on existing and proposed developments is an important consideration. The public are now to be invited to participate in the choice of route. Planning principles for both the central Government and local authorities are set out in the departmental circular which has now been made available to local authorities, No. 10/73, recommending that where practicable residential development should not be subject to a noise level of more than 70 dB(A)—that is, that the noise level should not exceed 70 dB(A) for more than 10 per cent. of the time between 6 a.m. and midnight. This is referred to as the acceptable rather than the desirable, and lower levels should be achieved where practicable.
It is not practicable to prevent all nuisance from motorways in broad planning and design terms, and more localised remedies are needed in some places. Under the Land Compensation Act 1973 more land may now be purchased for mitigating works, such as barrier development, extra landscaping and planning and noise barriers. These measures help to reduce the amount of noise which affects dwelling and help to maintain the quality of the environment generally.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are about 40 other hon. Members who have been drawn in the Ballot. We must get on.

Mr. Morris: The cost of insulating residential properties suffering from 68

dB(A) from traffic on all existing roads has been estimated to be about £1,000 million.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) referred to the problem of the high-pitched whine which he suggested emanated from what he termed the random grooving on the M40. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is considering this property and is actively engaged in finding a solution to the problem. Nevertheless I shall bring the hon. and learned Gentleman's views in this regard to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. I shall certainly put forward his suggestion that the report from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory should be circulated generally when it is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) very sincerely referred to the problem facing hundreds of his constituents arising from the location of the motorway junction in the Birmingham area, which he described colloquially as Spaghetti Junction. He said that his constituency was accursed by noise and dust emanating from this motorway. I noted his rather original suggestion that the highway authority that was responsible for building the motorway should bear the whole of the cost—

Mr. Silverman: The social cost.

Mr. Morris: The social cost—arising from the inconvenience caused by the motorway. I shall certainly bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend admitted that the Land Compensation Act was an advance but suggested that it was not enough. He invited my right hon. Friend to look again at the level of noise, which he argued was too high, and the level of compensation, which he believed to be inadequate. I will certainly draw these views to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The Perry Bar barriers are in fact an experiment. There are different problems arising with Gravelly Hill and as yet no decision has been made.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) questioned accepted noise levels. I assure him that this matter is under consideration and subject to review. He referred to the surfacing problem of the M25. This is a problem which will be noted. The hon.


Member said that he would wish to present a petition and lead a deputation to see my right hon. Friend. I will intervene on his behalf to put his views forward for sympathetic consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) described most graphically the problems facing those of his constituents living close to the motorway. He said that their lives were a living hell. I accept the points he made. I sympathised with him when he told the story of an old lady in his constituency who had to accept a noise level of 80 decibels. This is intolerable. The problems of his constituents are not forgotten. We will do everything we cart to ease their difficulties.
My hon. Friend referred to the alternatives of lorry routes and the transfer of heavy goods traffic to rail. I have sympathy with his views. He will know that the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973 required local authorities to draw up schemes by 1977 for the control of heavy vehicles in their area.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) dealt with the problems arising from the M20 and M5. He described the appalling planning which has contributed to his constituents' plight. He related how some houses were 30 ft. from the motorway. The problem of whine from concrete road surfacing was another issue he raised, as well as some emotional points about his constituents being unable to sleep. His views have registered and will recieve serious consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) spoke of the difficulties facing his constituents in Chelmsley Wood and Water Orton. He said that the sword of Damocles was hanging over his constituents in Water Orton. I have noted his concern and his request for an early statement on the line of route for the new M42 and the M6 link.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made an original and intriguing point when he reversed the argument and said that there was a prob-

lem of motorway noise but that it was noise emanating from the vehicles rather than the motorway which was of major concern. He said that we should put pressure on manufacturers to reduce noise levels emanating from vehicle engines. The Government, industry and research authorities are conducting a five-year project to develop a quieter heavy goods vehicle engine which will produce vehicles half as noisy as those at present on the roads. The project is well advanced.
I have taken a careful note of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), particularly about the noise problem which he expects to arise from the proposed motorway. If there is an inquiry into this proposal, I hope that he and those who share his views will put their anxieties to the inquiry.
Finally—[Interruption.] If this reply seems to be long, it is only because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it certainly is that.

Mr. Morris: My only justification for it is that I have listened for three hours to the speeches and the seriousness of the points which have arisen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but there are many other debates to take place and I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as I can.

Mr. Morris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that you appreciate my difficulties.
I reiterate to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) the answer which I gave about the whining noise from grooved motorway surfaces. The problem is under active consideration.
We have a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards motorways generally. We welcome the convenience which they bring for motorists, but there is a problem of inconvenience to those obliged to live alongside them. I hope that in the years ahead we shall be able to resolve these difficulties.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY

10.58 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am not sure whether the Minister knows of the problems which exist in our fishing ports. They are not too bad in Hull, but I advise him, if he has time, to go to ports such as Milford Haven, Buckie in Scotland, Brixham in Devon and others, and although the deep sea fleet is holding its own the future is not too certain and the inshore fleet is in difficulty now and has been for some weeks.
If the Minister wishes to know the extent of the pessimism, perhaps he will look at the annual report of the White Fish Authority. Charles Meek is a very able, experienced man, but his report this year is what I would term, without being unkind, almost a book of gloom. Certainly it is a document of doom. The Trawling Times stated that Mr. Meek
told pressmen that there are now over 100,000 tons of fish in cold store in this country and if they are held there much longer considerable sections of the industry will go out of business altogether. Now the market has taken a very sharp downturn indeed. A kit of cod was fetching £18·50 in January which was admittedly exceptional but it was £15 in December and is now down below £12 at the end of May. There is a bad time coming for the fishing industry.
I do not share that gloomy view. Last year was the best year in living memory. It is amazing how quickly we have switched from optimism to pessimism.
For the last three years there have been no subsidies. The system is complicated, but no subsidies are payable if the fleet's gross profits are more than £7·8 million. So the fleets have had quite a good time. Now we have gloom. Prices are depressed, cold stores are bursting and inflation is eroding whatever profits are being made. Some people are asking whether the industry needs support. I am the last man to wish the industry to be propped up by the Government.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions in the light of the information he has from his officers at the ports. Do the Government think that the fishing boat operators, particularly in the smaller ports, are going or will go to the wall? The Minister must be getting facts and figures from his staff

at Milford Haven, Lowestoft and Aberdeen. Townspeople are sceptical. They know that cod was fetching 75p a lb not long ago.
Skipper Taylor—a well-known, almost internationally well-known skipper—came back with £64,000 worth of fish not long ago. He got about £6,000 for his share of the catch, of which he paid £3,750 in tax. Like a boxer, he decided that for the time being he would not fish because if he did he would have to pay too much tax.
Skipper Taylor is one of my constituents and I know him well. He has appeared on television. My job is not to judge him—his employers can do that later—but he has been very foolish in Icelandic waters. He has been politically foolish because his actions will encourage the Icelanders to make more conservation belts, and none of us wants that.
Skipper Taylor has been having a difficult time and I want to defend him. I was told to look at the Daily Telegraph—it is not a paper I like to buy—and I have discovered that he was given orders how to behave. The vessel came directly back to the Humber and lay for two days inside the estuary, as all vessels do which are in ice and which are bound for St. Andrew's docks. In the docks there is still water which can have a temperature of 50 degrees and can sometimes melt the ice. The boats lie out in the Humber where it is much cooler. In the last week Skipper Taylor has been knocked about a bit by the local Press. He has had a bad time and something should be said for him. These men face the elements and danger. Not many of us would like to go to the Arctic, and it is our job in this House to give these fishermen some care and attention.
The fleet as a whole lands 1 million tons, worth about £150 million. There are 23,000 full-time workers, involved in the industry. It must be said that the fishing industry is four to five times more important to Scotland in terms of manpower, boats and catches. The inshore fleet catches something like 46 per cent. of the total and accounts for 5,500 vessels. I hope and believe that the men in the industry will obtain the help they require.
I am not completely at ease when I think of the amount of cold storage that is undertaken. We obtain around


450,000 tons of fish from the deep-sea vessels and if the North-East Atlantic quotas bite and we catch less there will be a greater outflow from cold storage. We may face something of a bogy in this respect, but I believe that there will slowly be an outflow as our catch becomes less. If it is said that we should send our boats into the North-West Atlantic off Greenland and Labrador, we must remember that the quota there is down to 28,000 tons. Therefore, not many vessels will be able to go there to catch very much fish.
It is difficult to predict the future of the deep sea fleet. I believe that we shall phase out some of the older vessels which will become unproductive in the near future. If they have to steam 5,000 miles to the North-West Atlantic, they will be in difficulties in trying to get back and make money on the trip, even with a £40,000 catch. With fuel at the price it now is, I am told that some of the older vessels use £100,000 worth of fuel in a year's work.
Following the advent of the 200-mile limit—some collective decisions on this matter will be taken at the Caracas conference—there is no doubt that we shall phase out some of our older vessels. Even more significantly, however, we shall find that our vessels from Hull, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and Grimsby will be coming back to fish in nearer waters. This is inevitable. We no longer make vessels like the "Arctic Buccaneer," which was 270 ft. long and cost £1½ million to build and equip. The day of that size of vessel has gone. I do not think the future structure of our fishing fleet envisages vessels of the kind built by the Japanese or Communists—large vessels which scoured the world in search of their catches. Owners such as Michael Bolton of Hull are now building small vessels.
The present situation poses enormous difficulties for the smaller ports and inshore fleets. Although the catch will be much the same in value, the catches undoubtedly will be different if we are fishing within our 200-mile limit and in the meantime have expelled aliens, in much the same way as the Icelanders wish to expel us. We have the pelagic fish, such as the herring and mackerel, rather than the demersal fish that are

found in Icelandic waters, off Norway and elsewhere.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what he thinks about swapping arrangements which will involve, say, our having licences to catch 50,000 or 100,000 tons off the Norwegian or Icelandic bank and others in return being allowed to fish in our waters.
I cannot see our fleet in the future getting as far afield as the South Atlantic or the North-West Atlantic. We may get new species off Western Islands, Porcupine and Rockall Banks, but to talk of them is to talk of a situation which is years ahead. In that connection my hon. Friend the Minister might look at the possibilities of blue whiting. I am told that there are 10 million tons and that most are females—which is a good augury for the future—from North-West Ireland up to the Shetlands, and that there is a future for them. If we can get the machinery to gut them, we can make good use of them.
I want now to say a few words about the inshore fleet. I think that it faces very difficult times. Does the Minister believe that the difficulties are acute in the face of the overheads which it faces? It is not merely a question of nets, which are now costing much more. Inshore fishermen are now paying three times as much for their fuel, which my people are not doing. On the Humber we have a contract for our heavy fuel, and that will last until 1975. I understand that the smaller men are in difficulty. I do not want to be personal about the constituencies, but I should hate to think that the frugal, independent and hardworking people in a place like Buckie were likely to have their way of life undermined by a situation such as that which hit the herring fleets in the 1930s when men were forced ashore to live on the dole.
On the subject of finance and what is happening today, my Scottish colleagues will correct me if I am wrong but on a family boat, which has a skipper and seven men, their money is their own. If we get out of Icelandic waters and people in Hull like Associated Fish and some of the other "big boys" invest here, more and more of the small men will disappear
I ask the Minister to look at legislation in Norway. Norway is a Socialist


State. A long time ago it passed legislation providing that of the money which went into a boat, 51 per cent. was fishermen's money. The Norwegians have never had the problem of enormous concerns like Associated Fish, BTF and the like. I am much happier with the Norwegian economy than with the one we have at the moment. For some years I have advocated nationalisation or at least a State sector in our fleet. However, there is no chance of getting that, with or without a Labour Government.
I should hate to see large capitalist concerns on the Humber investing money in the inshore fishing fleet and then twisting or altering people there—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Surely the trend of my hon. Friend's argument is that we want a recognition of communities which depend upon the fishing industry, wherever they may be, and subsidies paid to their interests. That is what we want from our Government to maintain life and industry, especially in remote areas, but also on parts of the Yorkshire coast.

Mr. Johnson: Perhaps I was being clumsy, but I thought that I was saying that.
The Norwegians have family boats and a way of life which has not been spoiled by large investments from concerns such as those associated with our deep sea fleet. I hope we shall not find our smaller family boats being ousted by the "big boys". I fear that if the money cannot be invested in catching fish off Iceland, it will be invested in catching fish closer to our own shores. We must watch this carefully.
Lastly, will the Minister tell us why there is such a culpable neglect of fish farming? Do the Government have a policy on fish farming? They seem totally negative at the moment. The previous Government were the same, not the worst.
Many years ago I went with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to Lowestoft. We were excited by the possibilities of fish farming. Why are we not pushing ahead with it? I am told that there is a snag regarding local government finance because no one seems to know how to treat a fish farm or how to give planning permission.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has not yet fixed his summer holidays—I cannot believe that he has not—and would care to consult me later, I can give him a good itinerary which would take in five or six fish farms in the western and north-western areas of Scotland. He would realise, having seen them, that this industry is flourishing and expanding. I should be delighted to give him the necessary information.

Mr. Johnson: I am sure that I could not have a nicer guide. Of course the Japanese are a much older civilisation and have been fish farming for 40 centuries, but Norway and France are now passing us in this area. What are the Government doing about fish farming? I think we should be doing more than we are.
I come back to my main theme. I ask my hon. Friend to pay close attention to what I believe will be the oncoming plight of the inshore fishing fleet.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: We normally have our annual fisheries debate on the subject of subsidies. There are now no operational subsidies and the building subsidies have been phased out for a short period. Therefore, we are grateful for this opportunity to discuss this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent agricultural constituencies will know what a problem agriculture can be. People are asked to produce butter and we have a butter mountain. They are asked to produce beef and we have too much beef. Fishing represents an even more difficult problem, because apart from fish farming it is a hunting industry. We have to hunt what we catch. Therefore, the industry has violent ups and downs.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said that 1973 was a record year with £152 million worth of fish landed in this country. That was 40 per cent. up on 1972. This year the position is not so good. I understand that there is 100,000 tonnes of fish in cold store at the moment. If that is suddenly released on to the market we shall have a lot of trouble.
There is a growing restriction on fishing. Quota fishing has been introduced. I am not complaining about that as it is important from the conservation point of view. But restrictions will increase.
We also have the appalling problem of fuel costs which will add £20 million to the fishing industry's bill this year. It amounts to as much as £100,000 per vessel per year for some of the older vessels.
The point of referring to these facts is to remind the Government that they must react quickly to the problems of the fishing industry. Sometimes it is up and at other times it is down. The Government must therefore come in and act. They have done well by reintroducing building subsidies which were suspended temporarily by the previous Government. However, I hope that they will not have to reintroduce operational subsidies, but we shall have to wait and see whether a fuel subsidy becomes essential if the high price continues or increases.
I should like to refer briefly to two problems affecting the distant water section of the industry and to four problems affecting the inshore water fleet. The first point concerns Iceland. Both sides of the House will welcome the decision of the International Court of Justice on the Icelandic dispute. It completely underlines all the points which have been made on both sides of the House—this has never been a matter of party politics—to the effect that British fishing vessels had an historic right to fish in the waters in question and that the Icelandic Government were wrong in their unilateral action.
The Icelandic Government have said recently that an area 12 miles by 50 miles on the north Cape of Iceland should be closed to fishing. This was one of the areas which, under last year's agreement, British vessels were allowed to fish. Is there to be consultation about this matter? I hope that there is to be no question of unilateral action by Iceland. If there is to be genuine consultation on a matter of conservation, no doubt we shall agree. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there will be discussions on this point. The 1973 agreement is, I believe, to last for two years. It is to be hoped that by the end of two years the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea will have made a definitive finding.
It has been said during the recent election campaign in Iceland that there is to be an extension unilaterally to 200 miles. I hope that that was said in the heat of an election campaign and that the Icelanders will not provoke another cod war. I am certain that they will not do so and that Mr. Geir Hallgrimson whom I know well, would wish to negotiate and would not attempt any such unilateral action similar to that taken by the former Icelandic Government.
I want to refer briefly to the Conference on the Law of the Sea. We on this side believe that there should be an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles which would allow us to exchange certain areas of fishing with other countries so that we could have a good spread of certain types of fish. We believe, secondly, that we should exercise jurisdiction within the exclusive economic zone off our own shores, and particularly over inshore waters.
We believe that the sea bed beyond the EEZ should be controlled by international authority, possibly the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, and that such an authority should issue licences to companies for the exploitation of the sea bed. Revenue would be reserved for the Third World, and land-locked States would have certain specified rights in this area. We also believe that territorial waters should be extended to 12 miles, provided that there is international agreement to preserve in all international straits the rights of passage of merchant ships and warships. We believe, lastly, that no country should take unilateral action on any of these matters until the Conference on the Law of the Sea has come to a definite decision.
I believe that there is no dispute about these matters and that that is the line that the Government are now pursuing at Caracas. It is as well to underline that this is not a matter of party politics. This enhances its importance.
I hope that the Minister will remind his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office of the importance of the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic. British fishing vessels have to go great distances to catch fish and they are beginning to take a great interest in the Antarctic, particularly in the Falkland Islands. If there is an EEZ of 200 miles, that area will become of great importance. This underlines the


importance of the wish of the Falkland Islands to remain part of the British Commonwealth.
I come to my four points on the inshore industry. I said that we on this side believe that there should be an EEZ of 200 miles and that territorial waters should be extended to 12 miles. Those are two separate issues. We must also have separate protection for our own vessels within those 12 miles, or perhaps within 18 miles.
The Fisheries Organisation Society has said that we should retain exclusive use for British fishing vessels within 12 miles of our shores and that this should be negotiated with the European Economic Community. That is the ideal. It would have to be done by negotiation; as historic rights would have to be phased out there would have to be give and take. I hope that the Minister will agree with the Fisheries Organisation Society that this matter is important both from the point of view of conservation and from the point of view of our inshore fleet.
The previous Government decided, just before the General Election, to have a temporary ban on beam trawling. The present Government have not reinforced that decision but have prevaricated for a long time about the banning of this type of trawling. In the last reply I received from the Minister concerned, he said he was awaiting a decision by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission on the matter of quotas. The Commission has now met, and I wonder whether the Minister has received a report. I should like to know what he now intends to do about beam trawling.
It is a controversial matter but I should like to quote from a letter from a chief fishery officer who is in favour of the banning of beam trawling. He says about the beam trawling situation:
Many local fishermen now feel if the Minister does not soon seek a sensible solution to this problem the only answer will be to join them.
But all agree (even those with beamers) should only half of our inshore fleet revert to this method of fishing, the effects on our already declining sole stocks would be astronomical, and general feeling is unanimous that the inshore industry would be non-existent in less than five years.
In other words, whether one believes that beam trawling is bad for conservation or

not, it is one of the most efficient forms of inshore fishing and fishing stocks might be quickly fished out if everybody went in for beam trawling. There should be temporary ban until we get more information on the matter. I emphasise that if it is allowed to continue more ships might take to beam trawling, and that would be disastrous.
Professional fishermen are under great pressure at present because a large number of semi-professional fishermen are taking shares in inshore fishing vessels and are fishing at week-ends and causing a further decline of fish stocks, including white fish, in inshore waters. There is a strong feeling that there should be a proper registration system for the professional fishing vessel. At present anybody can register a fishing boat. I suggest that only those who are full-time fishermen and who can be ascertained as such by means of their national insurance classification should be allowed to use commercial fishing gear. This would not prevent amateurs with their rods or lines from continuing to enjoy fishing. These licences could be issued to full-time fishermen by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after appropriate consultations with fishery officers. I am unable to refer to this matter at length now, but it is a matter of growing importance around our coast and I hope that the Minister will consider the situation and my suggestions.
I turn finally to a matter relating to the National Dock Labour Board and the definition of an inshore vessel. The only definition that we in the House have is given in the legislation on subsidies, and this is that an inshore fishing vessel is one of less than 80 ft. Some time ago, in 1960, the National Dock Labour Board excluded inshore fishing vessels from its responsibility and allowed crews to unload their catch. At Fleetwood in 1972 a regulation was introduced to define an inshore fishing vessel as being under 60 ft. —not under 80 ft.—and under 40 tons.
This does not matter very much to the fishermen in Fleetwood, because I understand that they have their own quay and do not normally use the Fleetwood local dock labour board's port. But problems arising from this are spreading to other ports. At Grimsby a dispute has gone on for over a year. The local dock labour board is saying that it will charge inshore


fishermen for unloading fishing vessels of under 60 ft. and under 40 tons which fish for more than four days, which is a more restricted definition that we use in the House. This means an increased charge on small vessels, which are generally owned by the skippers and crews which could amount to £125 for 100 bits plus dock charges and the rest. If it is done in Grimsby it will spread to other NDLB ports and eventually over the whole country. This would be very injurious to the inshore fishermen, and I hope the Minister will look at this point.
As this may be the last Consolidated Fund Bill debate before a General Election, it is perhaps an appropriate time to say that fishing has never been a matter of party politics. We have always managed to tackle it as a united House of Commons. Long may this continue.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Fishing may be outside party politics when we discuss the industry's prosperity and the safety and earning capacity of the crews, but the way in which Government subsidies are used is very much a matter of party controversy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has called for at least a partial nationalisation of the fleet. Many of us would go further than that with the deep and middle water fleets. Because of the industry's importance to local economies and the national diet, it should not be left to the vagaries of the market. Although the reintroduction of building subsidies by the Labour Government has been welcomed, we should want greater scrutiny of the way they are used and the use to which companies put their profits.
I agree that the cost of oil is a problem, particularly for the inshore fleets, which play a great part in the economies of scattered communities. These are mainly small family concerns making short-term profits. They do not have the economies of size of the larger firms and they are bound to feel more deeply the quadrupling of the cost of oil.
Exclusive economic zones may be agreed at Caracas, but they will not come from Vienna. Our problem is how to hold the line until we get realistic agreements on principles decided at Vienna. We must look carefully at the whole

question of conservation, tied up as it is with the 200-mile EEZ.
My union is concerned with the prosperity and well-being of the industry, and we believe that the time has now come for an inquiry into labour relations, the need for decasualisation and proper contracts and conditions of employment, particularly for those on the deck and in the factory hold.
A matter of current interest on Humberside but which raises issues of principle for the whole industry is the case of the "C. S. Forester". My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I "nobbled" the Under-Secretary of State for Trade for a few minutes in the Lobby and told him of our concern about a number of aspects of this case. The vessel was allegedly fishing within the Icelandic 12-mile limit. A number of questions arise on points of principle. The incident involved a Hull vessel, but it could have involved any trawler. Since it was a Hull vessel with a Hull skipper and a Hull crew, the incident will be associated with individuals. I declare my interest in the matter by saying that I am a member of the union which sponsors me in this House and which organises the industry.
The questions which arise are these. What instruction is given to trawler skippers whose vessels are challenged for allegedly fishing within the 12-mile limit? Why in this case did the skipper continue to risk his ship after it had been fired on with eight shells, two of which went into the engine room and one into the water tank? The Hull Daily Mail, that excellent organ which kept us informed on this matter, reported the commander of the Icelandic vessel "Thor" as saying that the skipper would be caught only if the trawler was sunk and that when the vessel was stopped it was listing slightly. There were a lot of men on that ship and presumably their lives were at risk.
Why did the skipper refuse to answer questions on the radio telephone until the relief ship "Hausa" arrived on the scene? Why did he refuse to answer questions from the patrol boat "Thor", the Icelandic coastguard and even his owners? What was the effect of this on the safety of the crew? Why were the interim agreements about procedure in


the event of a dispute in Icelandic waters not followed? An important question in view of the effect of tiredness of the skipper in this vessel is his position in regard to making an accurate judgment of the situation. Why was two days' fishing ordered on the crew after the vessel had left Iceland? What is the position of the crew under the Merchant Shipping Act over their refusal to fish when they left the Icelandic port?
What is the relationship of the skipper, its owners, the Government and the crew in incidents of this nature? I understand that the skipper will appear before the United Kingdom Trawlers Mutual Insurance Association on the question of having hazarded his ship and endangered his crew, but is it sufficient to leave the matter there? Surely the Government have an important part to play in an inquiry.
I would have thought that there was a duty upon the Government to establish their own inquiry. I have put down a Question on that matter to the Secretary of State for Trade today. Here is a skipper taking certain decisions. I put the point as neutrally as that. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, if the men were to put the ship at risk they would be subject to an industrial tribunal which would represent the owners and the people employed, but more than that they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
I am not concerned with the particular skipper. His record is known. There is, however, a principle involved. Can we have legislation that penalises members of the crew and lets the skipper go scot-free? A number of inquiries are going on concerning various vessels in the past year which need careful examination. One hopes that the inquiry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced to the House will look into the whole matter.
There is also the position of the owners. Did they order the ship to fish after it had left Iceland? Did they say that the crew had to be penalised for refusing to fish by staying outside the dock before the ship could land its catch? Why was not the ice room on a new vessel sufficient to hold the catch and maintain it in its condition, despite the arguments about the

various degrees of temperature within the dock, if it came in a few days early?
These important questions must be considered. They are important in terms of not only international relationships but the whole of the industrial relationships within the industry, an industry to which we have just said we shall advance more subsidies. We are entitled to ask these questions.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I shall do my best to accord with your justified request for short speeches, Mr. Speaker, as there are still about 40 debates to go. It has been made easier for me by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) but less easy by Labour Members talking about nationalisation. However, I shall not be drawn by what I may describe as a red herring.
I shall argue from the particular to the general by talking about the port of Fleetwood, which I am proud to represent. I must disclose an interest as president of the Fleetwood Inshore Fishermen.
It has been said that the fishing industry is complex. Indeed it is. Within the industry and without it we have many problems to face. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that there is too much gloom about. We have faced greater difficulties in the past and we have come through, and I dare say we shall survive the present situation. That does not mean that we do not face formidable problems in the short and the long term, but it is a tough industry and one that has the habit of surviving.
In my own port of Fleetwood we are in the aftermath of the longest industrial disputes we have ever had in the port, after many years of industrial peace. But I will not rake over that ground; there is no point in opening old wounds. What I should like to see is the bitterness cut to a minimum and a continuing dialogue taking place between the owners and the men to see that problems can be dealt with before they reach that point again. That could happen, with good will on both sides, because there is a good future in Fleetwood for both the inshore and the deep sea fleet.
We are extending the Jubilee Quay where the inshore boats dock. The size


of that fleet has doubled within a year, and I think we shall see a further increase. I hope that will be so, because the pattern of fishing will change. I believe that Fleetwood is a port that will accept that change, go along with it and still remain viable. After the Law of the Sea Conference we are bound to face a different situation for both our inshore and our deep sea fleets.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that it is not only the 200-mile limit about which we must be concerned. If that is the limit that is established, we must have a limit of exclusive jurisdiction of at least 12 miles or even 50 miles so that we shall be able to control conservation in that area. With only one nation patrolling such an area, it would be much more likely to be controlled effectively than if it were under the terms of some airy fairy international settlement.
At Fleetwood there is the extended Jubilee Quay and the modernisation of the fish dock for the other trawlers. I see a great future. In addition, we are extending our dry cargo facilities. That will help to make it a much better balanced port. However, I repeat what I said in an agricultural debate and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and possibly by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West: that the price of food and the price of manufacturing food is changing quickly.
The Minister probably knows that the White Fish Authority, for example, has estimated that in the coming year the addition to the fuel bill for the industry as a whole will amount to approximately £20 million. That shows that the Minister needs to keep a careful eye on the cost of fish. I crave in aid the steps which the Government took, which I welcomed very much, with the horticulture industry which was faced with a similar problem. In addition to fuel costs, as the White Fish Authority points out, there could well be a considerable increase in the cost of fishing gear because some of it is made from synthetic materials that are produced from oil.
The burden of my argument is that it may well be necessary, especially for the inshore fleet which has no long-term contracts with the oil companies, for some

sort of operating subsidy or fuel subsidy as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) recently suggested. I ask that such a subsidy should be considered as a matter of urgency. I do not expect the Minister to commit himself to such a scheme tonight but I ask him to promise to keep the matter under close review and to act before damage is done.
The people in my port and in many other ports look upon the fishing industry not as a job but as a way of life. That applies not only to the fishermen, who have a difficult, dangerous and arduous job, but to their wives and families. Anyone who doubts that has only to come to my constituency, to Fleetwood, on a grey cold, bitter, windy day in the winter to watch the fishermen's wives waving goodbye to their husbands going off to sea to realise that they have a special claim on any Government to ensure that the ships are well-founded and that the men's labour is well paid. This can only be done by a prosperous industry which gets the right price for its products and a fair rate of return for its labour. I am sure that both sides of the House are agreed on that. I therefore ask the Minister to keep a close lookout on the industry and see that it remains prosperous.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: In speaking of problems facing the Scottish fishing industry I want to deal with four points. The first is the question of the increase in fuel oil prices. In the past two or three years fishing has been very profitable. The fishermen themselves are the first to agree that that has been so. But the money they had coming in then has gone out just as quickly because of rapidly rising costs. A boat is now costing as much as £3,000 per foot. For herring fishing, the cost of the net is no less than £30,000.
I ask the Minister to see to it that our fishermen quickly get a subsidy on the operating fuel costs. The precedent has been set by the subsidy on fuel costs to the glasshouse industry, and I hope that the Government will make the same concession to the fishing industry.
Secondly, there is the situation developing between oil exploration and fishing. The oil explorers go into an area, push down a rig, drill for a time and then go away leaving a great deal of debris behind. I would like to see each oil company


being responsible for cleaning up the sea bed after it has ceased drilling and being made to trawl an area of four square miles around where its rig has been working so that the debris will not ruin the nets of fishermen of my constituency.
Thirdly, there is the situation of the herring industry of Scotland and the quota of 109,000 tons of herring taken off our shores which is to operate from next year. My fishermen have no quarrel with the quota. They believe that it is in the interests of conservation that there should be a quota. But they are particularly concerned with the situation wherein boats which have up to now been fishing in distant waters are turning back, coming to the inshore grounds and trying to get part of what has up to now been a lucrative industry.
The 109,000 or so tons of herring brought in annually in the past years have been taken mainly by the herring fishing fleet off Scotland. I am therefore talking not of a small industry but of a vital and viable part of Scotland's economy. In a more general context, I remind the House that last year Scottish fishermen took no less than 47 per cent. of all the fish landed in the United Kingdom, so that while this industry is large on a United Kingdom basis it is even larger in the Scottish economy. I should like the Minister to license the boats which will take part in the catching of the 109,000-ton quota so that the boats with a long tradition of fishing in these waters for the herring shoals get the first chance to catch this quota.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems that he has mentioned, which is a serious problem, arises because one of the effects of other countries extending their limits unilaterally has been to push back some of the deep sea industry, including our Scottish industry based at Aberdeen and Grantown, to fish in these waters? The support which the hon. Gentleman's party has given to the unilateral action of other Governments has very serious consequences for the fishermen in his constituency.

Mr. Watt: I am very well aware of the present situation. I realise that boats are being pushed back into these waters. But the point raised by the hon. Gentle-

man is not the way to look at this matter. The way to look at it is that the British should look after the British first. That is something which we have not done in the past. I for one would welcome the day when we have a 200-mile limit around our shores, when we can license foreign operators to come in and catch a certain quota and when we have complete control of all fish taken within 200 miles.
However, I am talking of the present and the herring fishing of next year. I should like to see licences granted to boats which have a tradition of fishing in this area so that they have preference. My constituents are also concerned about the operation of foreign boats at present fishing outside the Minches and elsewhere cutting the flow of the herring shoals into the Minches.
I come lastly to the question of the prawn fishers of the Moray Firth. These prawn fishermen are very often men who have given a lifetime to fishing, who are not yet ready to give it up but are keen to keep on fishing for the last five or 10 years of their fishing life. They are older men, very often operating older boats. They are very concerned that at present they are cut off from the prawn grounds because much of the prawn grounds lie within the 12-mile limit.
I ask the Minister to look again at the Cameron Report and to implement the recommendation in that report so that these prawn fishermen are allowed to fish between the 12-mile and 6-mile limits. They would then have access to the traditional prawn grounds. At present some of these older boats, although they may be bigger, are under-powered for present-day fishing but they are being forced to turn away to distant waters off Shetland and such places. Thus the boats and the crews are being put in danger.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister to come to meet some of my fishing constituents as soon as possible so they can put their problems to him and put their case more forcibly.

12 midnight.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the difficulties affecting the inshore fishermen of Sussex. Many of them feel that they have a justifiable cause for concern about beam trawling. There have been lengthy and somewhat frustrating


efforts by many of my hon. Friends to deal with this subject, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden), Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), Hastings (Mr. Warren) and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). They have all brought this subject to the notice of various Ministers with responsibility for fisheries.
The fishermen can judge from their catches that their landings have been declining and that their trade is threatened. They question whether this has been brought about by beam trawling, whether by our own boats or those from continental ports. There is no doubt in their minds that the weight and speed of beam trawling churns up the sea bed to an extent which not only damages the fish but also damages unborn fish.
I urge the Minister to investigate the pros and cons of beam trawling and to try either to reassure the fishermen of Sussex that beam trawling is not doing the damage they think it is or, on the other hand, to ban beam trawling from British waters, so that my constituents can pursue their livelihood in the way to which they have been accustomed over many generations.
I ask the Minister to give some sort of decision about beam trawling and measures to police this practice up to at least the 12-mile limit by strengthening the fisheries protection squadron and by reviewing the EEC rules about beam trawling. Lastly, I suggest that the Minister should apply to the inshore fleet the conservation proposals of the recently-held Law of the Sea Conference which would provide reassurance to the fishermen of Sussex about their future livelihood and prosperity.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure we are all delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary here to answer the debate. Following this debate there is to be a debate on agriculture, which we regard as being even more important. We regard the points raised in the fishing debate as being of immense importance. The next debate, however, is of great importance, particularly because it comes towards the end of the present Session, when we are likely to go into recess for some time.
Would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Minister were to seek to reply to the next debate he would need the leave of the House? We are most anxious that the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of State, should reply to the debate on agriculture. I hesitate to say this and to appear to be belligerent towards the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not wish to be tiresome and boring. A Government Whip is present on the Front Bench, and I hope he will make it clear to the Minister or to the Minister of State that in view of the importance of the next debate we would have the greatest possible reluctance in agreeing that the Parliamentary Secretary should have the leave of the House to reply to it.
This is fair and adequate warning to the Government that if the hon. Gentleman is to reply to this debate the Minister or Minister of State should reply to the following debate. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will agree that the hon. Gentleman must have the leave of the House if he intends to reply to the second debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Without knowing the Minister's intention about the succeeding debate, may I say that it is perfectly proper for him to reply by leave of the House. Technically we are debating the Second Reading of a Bill, but it is customary to reply by leave if a Minister proposes to reply to more than one debate. The hon. Gentleman's other point is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary has been given notice in fairly broad terms that he will not receive leave to reply to the second debate, and it would therefore be prudent of him to get the appropriate Minister to come to the House. There is no reason why the Minister or the Minister of State should have gone on holiday already or why one of them should not wait on the House. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary does not entertain any doubt about whether indulgence will be extended to him, because it will not be extended to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair or a point of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It will become a point of order if the hon. Gentleman endeavours to speak without leave.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we should see how we get on.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): It would, I think, have been courteous for the Opposition to have given notice of this point and—

Mr. Charles Morrison: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Bishop: I have not finished my reply.

Mr. Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if the Parliamentary Secretary was raising a point of order, but he did not say that. I thought, therefore, that he was replying to the debate. If he wishes to raise a point of order, I shall give way.

Mr. Bishop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I protest at the Opposition's tactics, despite their good wishes to me. In case anyone should think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about Ministers having gone on holiday is correct, may I point out that my hon. Friend, the Minister of State will be abroad on agricultural business until the end of the week; he is in Argentina. My right hon. Friend the Minister is this week involved in very important discussions with the New Zealand Minister of Agriculture, who is in this country. Therefore, the Ministers are not present tonight. I hope that if I ask for leave to reply to the next debate it will be granted.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary, but his explanation of the absence of the Minister is totally inadequate. It is difficult to believe that important negotiations with the New Zealand Minister of Agriculture are taking place at this hour. Secondly, even if that were so, with the greatest respect to the New Zealand Minister, we feel that the Minister of Agriculture should be here to reply to the subsequent debate which concerns matters of great import-

ance to the whole of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, although it is not a point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Bishop: I hope that the House will accept the explanation I have given. I understand that the Opposition were informed today of the reasons for the absence of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, and I hope that the House will accept them.
If I may reply to the debate—

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to labour the matter, but in view of the state of the agriculture industry it is of immense importance. The Opposition are concerned that the Minister is not to be here. Will the Parliamentary Secretary use his good offices within the next few moments to ensure that the Minister is here in time for the next debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A debate is now developing on a matter which is not the concern of the Chair. We should pursue the original debate and not points of order.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me how many Ministers of Cabinet rank replied to Adjournment debates and debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill when the Conservatives were in office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That again is not a matter for the Chair.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Bishop: I hope to finalise the points of order by saying that the Opposition knew at 2.30 this afternoon who would reply to all the debates. If they feel so strongly, it would have been for the convenience of the House if they had taken action at the right time.
The subjects of this and the subsequent debate are of great importance. I regret that some Opposition Members have seen fit to suggest that I am not able to deal with them and that the appeals that have been expressed will not be passed on to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sorry that the House has lost some time on this matter.
On the subject of the debate—the future of the fishing industry—several contributions have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the short time available it is not easy to give a balanced picture of the problems facing the fishing industry. My Ministry is not the only one concerned. I am thinking not only of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the shared responsibility in Wales but of important questions affecting the vessels and their crews which are the responsibility of the Department of Trade. They include the safety of the fleet. None of us who are concerned with the industry can forget the questions posed by the tragic loss this year of one of the most modern and best-equipped trawlers ever to sail from the Humber.
However, it is internationally that Governments tend most frequently—and rightly—to be involved with the interests of our fishing industry. We are concerned to see the rule of law at sea. That is why we hope there will be the necessary measure of agreement in the United Nations conference now in session in Caracas. Of course I cannot say what the outcome will be. It will not necessarily help our negotiators either to speculate or to say in too great detail what Government policy would be under new circumstances. But I am glad to give an assurance that the Government are keeping in close touch with representatives of our fishing industry and will have their interests constantly in mind.
I should like now to deal with the "C. S. Forester". My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who is present on the Government Front Bench, is also concerned in this matter. The observations of hon. Members on that trawler will be borne in mind, but these are matters which mainly concern the owners and representations can be made to the industry by the trade unions of which some of my hon. Friends are Members. I understand that the Department of Trade is inquiring into the matter, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade is inquiring into it. He hopes to have some comments on the situation in the next few days.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend says that it is the responsibility of the Under-

Secretary of State for Trade. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is not sufficient to say that these matters are mainly the concern of the unions and the industry. These matters relate to the safety of the people employed. They are matters of international law involving British vessels fired on by the vessels of foreign fleets. These are not merely matters of domestic concern between employers and unions. They are of concern to the nation as a whole and involve the safety of our constituents, for whom Her Majesty's Government must have a responsibility since they license those people to fish they specify the conditions under which they work.

Mr. Bishop: I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for his comments. Inherent in what I said was the fact that this is a matter for the trawler owners; it affects those who go to sea in trawlers and it therefore concerns the unions. In saying that it is a matter of concern for the Secretary of State for Trade, I was implying that it was a concern within the national interest. My hon. Friend has put the position very well indeed.

Mr. Wall: Normally the prodecure is to have a local inquiry through the insurers in Hull. After that the Minister, having seen the evidence, will decide whether to have a governmental inquiry. Is not that procedure to be followed in the present case?

Mr. Bishop: If we await the inquiry which is taking place under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, we shall have information in a few days and be in a much better position to judge the situation. The fact that the Ministry stepped in at this early stage is an indication of the anxieties we share on this matter. The situation is under the control of the Government and all the others who are involved.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the other points which have been made. I wish to refer to some comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at the opening of the Caracas conference. On 4th July, speaking at that conference, he emphasised our firm opposition to unilateral extensions of fishery limits. This point was taken up by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) who sought assurances about unilateral


action. In this as in other matters we need agreement, and our overriding concern is to help to establish a generally acceptable convention.
To that end my right hon. Friend said:
We are now ready to discuss positively and constructively the concept of an economic zone of 200 miles as a measure of progressive development of international law";
He went on, however, to say:
But if we are to create new rights, it is reasonable to look for balancing obligations. Our position therefore is conditional on the establishment of satisfactory rules for such a zone as well as on the freedom of navigation".
I want to underline how important it is not to quote what my right hon. Friend said about 200 miles without adding that our position is, as he said, conditional on the establishment of satisfactory rules for a zone of this breadth.
The outcome of the United Nations conference will obviously be important for the common fisheries policy of the EEC, because there is concern about some aspects of the arrangements negotiated by the previous administration. There are aspects of the common fisheries policy, for example, on marketing, on which the need for modifications in the light of the realities of the fish market is already being discussed in Brussels. These discussions are not only with Government representatives but with people from industries in member countries, including the British industry—distributors and processors as well as producers.
With regard to common access to the SFP, I recognise the continuing concern, especially about what is left open after 1982. We therefore consider very carefully whether there were questions to be added to those which we are currently reconsidering with our Community partners, but we decided that it would not be in our interests to negotiate for specific modifications before the future position under international law was much clearer. Obviously this will have to be looked at afresh in the light of the new situation created by the conference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) spoke about labour relations, decasualisation and so on. This is primarily a matter for joint negotiation between the two sides of the industry, and any questions for the Government which may be thrown up are

likely to be mainly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, my hon. Friend's comments will be borne in mind.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about fish farming. I think I can give some information to relieve the anxieties of those who feel that action should be taken by the Ministry. The basic research into hatching and rearing problems is being undertaken in the departmental fisheries laboratories. Development of farming techniques is also undertaken by the White Fish Authority. Research is concentrated on the most valuable marine species—that is, turbot and sole—although there is also a considerable effort on shell fish such as oysters and prawns. Major problems remain to be overcome in fish husbandry, nutrition and genetics. A number of commercial interests are investing considerable sums in fish farming, but a great deal of this effort is being applied to salmon in Scottish waters.
As for the rating of fish farms, I cannot hold out any hope of an extension of derating, which is a method of giving a subsidy at the expense of other ratepayers.
We also had some reference to planning. I am not aware of any planning difficulties which are impeding fish farming. If we are told of planning difficulties, I am sure we shall be prepared to consider them.
Another matter raised in the debate concerned beam trawling. The reply given to the hon. Member for Haltemprice on 23rd May is still relevant. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated at the time that discussions were being held with representatives of all those engaged in or affected by beam trawling. He said:
This has wider implications than the use of any particular gear or fishing by United Kingdom boats alone. The Government will, therefore, press for satisfactory international quotas at the meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission next month."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 215]
The president of the commission will shortly be circulating proposals for conserving sole and plaice and we shall give careful consideration to the matter when we know whether the proposals meet our requirements. The short answer is that


the matter is still under review. We hope to make a decision in the near future.
Several allegations have been made about the future of the industry. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West started by mentioning the annual report of the White Fish Authority. That report can be called gloomy about the future. There are various aspects in it which show that in the past things have been better than they are now, but it may indicate the way things change from time to time. In the introduction of the report we are told that cash returns to the fishing fleets in the calendar year 1973 were remarkable. There have been changes since. The future of the industry and the present situation are being watched closely by the Government.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice referred to the ruling by the International Court of Justice. I welcome the finding, as did the hon. Gentleman, because it establishes a point that we have maintained all along. We see no reason why it should adversely affect the interim agreement, which lasts until November 1975. I think that the hon. Gentleman queried the duration of the agreement. The Icelandic conservation area is outside the terms of the interim agreement. Therefore, we cannot order our trawlers to obey it. We have made this clear to the Icelandic Government, and also that our policy is to honour the interim agreement in both letter and spirit. In addition, we believe in proper measures for conservation. It seems to us that the two Governments should discuss the situation, and we have put that matter to them.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice will recall the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to his question about vessel grants and loans. On 27th June the hon. Gentleman was told that my hon. Friend had that day revoked the directions which imposed a temporary moratorium on approvals by the White Fish Authority. I think that that announcement has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The ending of the moratorium means that the WFA and the Herring Industry Board can, during the rest of 1974, issue approvals for assistance on the same basis as before.
On the post-1974 position, we are talking about approvals issued before the

end of 1974 but for vessels to be built much later, probably after 1975. Regarding approvals from January next, we shall be consulting the industry as soon as we can about what is to follow the expiring scheme.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to subsidies. It will be recalled that there was an operating subsidy until July last year. For various reasons the previous Government decided to discontinue that subsidy. However, we must look at the situation not as it was then and the reasons for discontinuation but as it is today and decide whether any other aid can be given to the industry.
We must all appreciate that dearer oil will be a fact of life, not only in the fishing industry but in other industries. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who asked whether we should not give the same consideration to fishing as was given to horticulture, which received a subsidy of 6p followed by one of 4p to end at the end of this year. Special aid was given to suit a special situation, but it is to terminate at the end of the year.
In 1974 fishing costs have risen when earnings have not. In 1972, and more especially in 1973, it was the other way round. A few moments ago I quoted from the annual report of the White Fish Authority. Most boats did well then.
Some sectors may be getting cheaper oil than others under bulk contract. It is difficult to justify the use of public funds either to equalise costs or to cheapen fuel artificially at the same rate for everybody. Other countries' priorities for public funds are not necessarily the same as those in this country. In any case, our industry tends to forget that as regards consumer grants and loans it is the foreigner who may be jealous. So far there is no evidence of shortage of British landings harming consumers or attracting imported replacements to our industry's detriment, but we shall obviously continue to keep a close watch on the situation. As in the case of horticulture, we shall be ready to act as we see fit.
On the matter of prices, one of my hon. Friends referred to the industry being up against the wall. The industry has seen better times than in the last year or so, but there are now grounds for optimism.


One of the factors which we should bear in mind in considering the industry's future is that August usually brings a seasonal rise after the May to July trough. Even with the industry's cold stores piled up and with the industry understandably trying to secure its needs against uncertainties, there is no question of permanent over-supply.
Because of the enthusiastic publicity for relatively small experimental catches of unfamiliar species, consumers may not have realised that what is on regular sale comes from the kinds of fish we have always known.
It is hard to judge the influence of beef prices on the fish trade, but some people in the fish trade think that this influence is important.
These are some of the main points which have been made. I conclude with one or two observations on conservation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 24th July, representatives of the fishing and oil industries are to join the Departments concerned in a new consultative group which should soon have its first meeting in Aberdeen. It is sensible to run this from Scotland where the oil companies are based, but this is Great Britain machinery and both the BTF and my Ministry will be taking part.
With regard to the North-East Arctic Agreement, the United Kingdom, under tripartite agreement with Russia and Norway, is fishing under the quota, which in 1974 is 77,000 tons. The agreement is conditional on non-signatory nations restricting catches also to 50,000 tons, and it is likely that this limit has been exceeded. We shall be meeting the USSR and Norway soon to review the agreement in this light.
With regard to North-East Atlantic quotas on cod, haddock and whiting, the United Kingdom will press for catch limitations of these species at the special North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission Meeting in November. In relation to sole and plaice, at the June meeting of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the United Kingdom pressed for an international catch limitation. Agreement has not yet been reached but a proposal is to be circulated for a postal vote and it is hoped to have quotas in 1975. With regard to herring, a limitation

scheme has been agreed for the North Sea and a similar scheme is being considered for the West Coast.
The question of a ban on beam trawling has been under consideration for some time, but we have not yet arrived at a decision. However, the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and others will be taken into account. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Haltemprice shares the concern of a number of other Members on this matter.
I think that I have covered most of the questions raised. I shall not weary the House further at this time but I hope to write to hon. Members after we have studied their comments.
This would be a fitting occasion briefly to pay tribute to all those in the fishing industry who contribute to the nation's food supply. We admire the enormous courage they display in the hazardous situations in which they work. It would be only right to assure them and the House that the Government will bear in mind the situation of the fishing industry, as it changes from day to day, in order to deal with problems which might arise and to ensure continuing viability of this important industry.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

12.37 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is evident from some earlier remarks and points of order that we should remind the Government Front Bench of the exact nature of the proceedings. We are concerned with the traditional right of any Member of the House to seek redress and grievance before voting Supply. That is not a matter in which it lies within the capacity of Whips to enter into agreements. It is a matter for individual Members of the House, and for a Whip to claim that he has agreement from another Whip is to claim rights in a sphere which Whips have no right to enter.
The Government have not exhibited a notice in the Lobby stating whom they would like to reply to the debate. They could have done so had they wished to inform the House which Ministers were to reply to debates. This would have enabled representations to have been made if the Ministers concerned were


not considered satisfactory by hon. Members who raised the various topics in the debate. This course was open to the Government but they have not chosen to take it.
It seems that the Minister of Agriculture prefers to be in bed rather than attend the debate. I take it that we are not being invited to believe that at 20 minutes to one he is in negotiation with somebody from New Zealand. Fred is in bed, and that is the truth of the matter. He should be down here, in the House—and that is also the truth of the matter.
I give notice to the Parliamentary Secretary that he will not have the leave of the House to reply to the debate because he simply does not have authority to give any of the undertakings which will be sought by hon. Members during the debate. Only the Minister of Agriculture has authority to give those undertakings. There is thus no point in the Parliamentary Secretary replying. Instead, he would do well to do what he was asked to do some time ago—to get the Minister of Agriculture here, because only he can reply to the debate and give the undertakings which are necessary.
Let us consider the situation in the agriculture industry. We find that in regard to milk, for example, the position is already very serious for the producer, and it will become so for the consumer and for the thousands and thousands of people employed in the milk manufacturing industry. Do not let us be in any doubt about that. This year, returns to the milk producer per cow will be about 60 per cent. down on 1972–73 and about 30 per cent. down in real terms on 1968–69. Only a special review will deal with the problem. The Milk Marketing Board estimates that demand for liquid milk this year will be about 75 million gallons higher and production about 65 million gallons lower than in 1972–73. Yet we are spending £7 million a year on a milk-to-beef scheme.
Taking an average of 800 gallons per cow per year—a modest figure—we shall already have lost, from the applications so far approved by the Departnemt, about 50 million gallons a year. If all the applications so far in are approved—there is no reason why they should not be—we shall have paid people to reduce production by about 129 million gallons, at a time when it looks as if we may not even have

enough milk for our liquid consumption. What will happen to the livelihood of the tens of thousands of people employed in milk manufacture, making butter, cheese and cream, if there is no milk for them to manufacture, as could be the case next February?
Let us not continue for a moment more with a milk-to-beef scheme which pays people to do the opposite of what national policy demands. The scheme may have been introduced by the Conservatives. So what? That is no reason for continuing it when it is seen to be inappropriate to our needs. Some idiot has said that the money comes from the EEC anyway, but even that is no reason for paying people to act contrary to national policy.
Milk production is therefore reduced because of inflated costs, and public money is disbursed to persuade people to do the opposite of what national policy requires, with results harmful to the housewife, to people in milk manufacture, to the farmer going into beef when it is already to some extent in over-supply, and to the balance of payments, because we shall have to import our butter and cheese, if it can be imported. It is highly doubtful whether it can be imported. We shall have a situation like that of Marie Antoinette and the cakes: "If you want Camembert you can have it, if you want Danish Blue you may get it next February or March, but you will not be able to have Cheddar."
The situation calls for urgent Government action to increase the return to the producer by about 8p a gallon, whether by an increase in the liquid milk price or by subsidy—a political decision for the Government. Without an increase of that order, the present desperate trend simply will not be reversed. Talking about the next price review at the end of February or March next year simply will not do, because this winter farmers will be forced even more into low farming, into the lower use of concentrates. Their bank managers will insist upon minimum cost farming unless the return is increased by about 1p a pint.
One of the effects of inflation is that more working capital is required to carry the same stock but the price to the producer is not generating working capital. It is not even servicing loans. I therefore press upon the Government, and on any


Government who succeed them, that these are crucial questions which must be dealt with without delay.
The beef producer is in a fairly desperate position for many reasons, including the great increase in calf slaughterings over the last year. Because returns to milk producers are inadequate to cover costs, no one has wanted to rear calves for milk production. Although there is alleged to be a beef mountain, it is worth bearing in mind that this represents only about six days' consumption. Even so a stock of that kind, being larger than normal, can completely dislocate the market. I mention that caveat because not many years ago people were wringing their hands and talking about the cheese mountain, but that disappeared within nine months and went into deficit.
The situation could therefore change very quickly. The so-called beef mountain might have a devastating effect on producers' returns now but it will be of no lasting value to the consumer.
The pig producer is in desperate straits. In an earlier debate I quoted the case of a farmer in my constituency who a year ago had 600 pigs and six weeks ago had 30 because that was all he could afford to feed. His returns are less than the cost of keeping those pigs alive. Producers cannot continue on that basis indefinitely.
Many housewives have discovered that there is a problem with sugar, which is likely to continue. There is not much confidence among beet producers. I do not see the sort of increased acreage that we shall need. I do not see the inducement or the working capital to produce it. The position on eggs is desperate too. Rising feed costs have overtaken the putative returns that the size of the flock nationally can provide.
Therefore, across the whole range of agriculture desperate action is being taken. It is no part of my task to say that it is the Government's fault. Much of it is not. Much of it is due to increasing world fodder prices which are not the fault of the present Government and were not the fault of the last Government. What does become the Government's fault, however, is if the remedial action which is necessary is not taken at the critical time when the need for it cannot fail to be apparent.
It will be a matter of the most damning criticism of the Government if they do not take that action. It cannot wait until parliament meets again. That is why I am raising the matter now. The importance of the action makes it unsuitable for a Government to take it when Parliament is not sitting. It should be announced when Parliament is sitting so that any ambiguities or inadequacies in the action can be corrected across the Floor of the House before it is too late.
That is why I wish to have the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here to reply to the debate instead of his being in bed. The state of the industry requires that. It is not an affront to the most junior Minister in the Ministry to say what he knows to be the truth: that he does not have authority to give the undertakings. I am not saying that he would not like to give them. Tonight is the last occasion before the House rises for the recess when such assurances can be sought by Members of any political persuasion and given to the House. If the Minister wants to intervene to say that his senior Minister is not in bed I shall be delighted to give way, but it looks as if that is not his intention.

Mr. Bishop: On a point of order. I explained the absence of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend. I think that most hon. Members will accept that explanation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: One is in Argentina, which means that he cannot be here. The other is surely not out of Britain. We were not told that he was in New Zealand. My understanding was that he was very much in Britain, very much in London, very much in bed. It is highly improbable that he is negotiating with a Minister from New Zealand.
However many Members put the need for immediate action by the Government, there is no Minister present who has authority to give the necessary undertakings. We do not want to be told that the matter is in hand, that consideration is being given to what action the circumstances warrant, and twaddle of that kind. We want specific assurances about the financial injection, not just for milk producers but certainly for egg producers, and to be told what action is being taken to stop the slide in beef. The action announced by the Minister, at


inadequately low prices, certainly will not have any such effect.
If anyone cared to inform himself of the assumptions that were made at the last price review about the returns which milk producers would receive from the sale of cull cows and calves, he would find that they have been completely vitiated by the collapse of the calf market. The effect of such measures as the Government have announced is likely to be offset in considerable measure not by an increase in returns to those who breed cattle in Britain, be they milk producers or those who breed beef herds, but by those who breed cattle in Southern Ireland. That is why prices in Southern Ireland have risen considerably. It is those people who will benefit in large measure from the action which has been announced by the Government. I do not believe that it is part of the British taxpayer's function to ensure that farmers in Southern Ireland have a better return for their cattle.
We need urgent action on behalf of the British producer, the British housewife, the consumer and the tens of thousands of people employed in the food processing industry. There are over 100,000 employed in the milk processing industry and distribution. That is apart from those employed in meat packing and egg packing. Many of those people look like being unemployed in February in areas where there is no alternative employment. What will happen to cheese prices then, I shudder to think.
Possibly the charming Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will come to the House every fortnight, she being charged with trying to stabilise food prices, to announce further huge injections of money to try to keep the price of cheese stable. Her attempts to do so will be quite unsuccessful because the cheese will not be available to be purchased. Measures of that kind will not be effective if we are not producing cheese because there is no excess of milk over liquid consumption and we cannot buy from the international market because it is not available.

Mr. John Golding: Cheerful.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Government Whip says "Cheerful". If he had done

his homework he would know that that is the position the country is entering or which it has entered. That is why one o'clock in the morning, on the last full day that the House is sitting, is the right time to draw to the Government's attention the need to announce this very day what action they intend to take to prevent the full horrors of a national policy of low farming reaching the producer and consumer. That is what faces us.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I had not intended to intervene but I shall do so briefly as a result of the inability of the Leader of the House yesterday evening to answer a question which I put to him and which I hope will be answered satisfactorily at the end of the day.
I must join my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in his annoyance that we do not see sitting on the Government Front Bench the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can remember only too well during the last Parliament how time and again the present Minister for State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food furiously reacted when the Minister was not present and when he was faced by the Parliamentary Secretary or even the Minister of State on the other side of the Dispatch Box. It is extremely poor that the Minister himself should not be here to answer this important debate.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the cheese mountain which disappeared. Equally he might have referred to the butter mountain which disappeared and to the beef mountain which we now have. One of the shortcomings of the Government is that they do not seem to appreciate that the objective of any agricultural policy must be to try to produce a marginal surplus of food. This is necessary simply because if there is not an adequate supply, and better still a marginal surplus, there is bound to be a shortage, and if there is a shortage the housewife will be rationed either by administrative action or by the purse.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if we accept his premise, why, last September, when the Conservative Government were in office, there was a decline in milk production and, for the first time in the


1970s, a reduction in the dairy and beef herd?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman now has his name in HANSARD, if it is ever printed in view of the inability of the Government to control the Government printers. I shall come to that point.
As I was saying, the Government are not pursuing a consistent agricultural policy. The consequence is a steady decrease in the confidence of farmers and in production trends. My hon. Friend rightly referred also to the problems of milk production. Although the milk producer has enjoyed a reasonably satisfactory summer, he has considerable fears about winter in relation to the costs he has to face.
An equally deep if not greater fear should be in the mind of the housewife that she will not be able to purchase the milk products which are an important part of the national diet. I trust that the milk producer will be able to provide fully for the liquid market, but doubts even about that have been expressed.
Next year there will be difficulties again because the Government have not yet made decisions and announcements about sugar beet production. I want to impress upon the Government the need to make an announcement in the very near future about beet sugar prices for the 1975 crop. If the Minister does not make an announcement soon, preferably today, it seems likely that the beet acreage will be cut, to the great disadvantage of the consumer, and instead of growing beet the producers will grow more corn. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make some statement on that account.
While noting in passing the important points made about the position of pig and poultry producers by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I wish to return to the question of beef production. On 26th June the Minister of Agriculture gave an undertaking that the beef producer was to receive a minimum of £18 per cwt. Then, on 17th July, he made a statement in which he announced the slaughter premia. Superficially the slaughter premia seem most attractive, and I am fully prepared to admit that they are a considerable help. The fact is, however, that by themselves they will not

live up to the undertaking which the Minister of Agriculture gave to the effect that a minimum price of £18 per cwt would be achieved.
I should like to give an example. The starting point in the first month of the slaughter premia, if my figures are correct, is £9·24 per head. Let us assume that we have an animal which weighs 9·24 cwt. That would mean that for every hundredweight there would be an equivalent slaughter premium or bonus—whatever term one cares to use—of £1. But if the animal is sold in the market for less than £17 per cwt, which at current prices is highly likely, it would mean in effect that the farmer would not receive a total of £18 per cwt.
That example can be repeated time and again, not only for the month of August but in ensuing months. The fact remains that the amount that the farmer ultimately receives will depend entirely on the price that he receives basically in the market. Of course the premium will help to make up the price, and with a bit of luck that price may average somewhere near £18 per cwt. But the £18 undertaking given by the Minister of Agriculture has not been lived up to, and it is quite likely that farmers will not receive such a minimum.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will refer to this point once again and give greater clarification for the benefit of farmers. I say "for the benefit of farmers" but ultimately it will be for the benefit of consumers, because if the farmer does not receive an adequate price for his beef he will gradually go out of production, and in a relatively short time there will be a shortage of beef and the consumer will then be paying a very much higher price indeed. This is not, therefore, a frivolous or unimportant point. It is something of great importance, firstly to the agricultural industry and then to the consumer.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I hope that the Government will have regard to this point as much as to the wider implications of their current agricultural policy, which is steadily reducing confidence within the industry and will produce an increasingly disastrous situation unless very constructive action is taken.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for introducing this important debate. The increased costs of production have hit the agriculture industry like a sledge-hammer in the past six months.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Twelve months.

Mr. Hawkins: Six months or 12 months. The industry has been hit and it cannot stand up to it.
I want to cite three short examples in three commodities about which I know something and to illustrate them by letters I have received from my constituents. Here I must declare an interest in that I am an agricultural valuer. I have checked with the valuer's association many of the costings that have been produced.
I will deal with pigs first. The sale prices of pigs have been almost static, although they have risen in the past month by a small amount. It is the feed costs, which have doubled since this time last year, which have made feeding of pigs an impossibility. With feed costs at £80 a ton one needs about £4·45 per score to make a reasonable return on one's money. At the present price of about £3 there is a loss of anything up to £5 per pig on the sort of pig sold to Sainsbury's at present.
I have many small pig producers in my area whose whole livelihood depends upon pigs. They do not have an acre of corn or sugar beet. Many of them have built up their farms having been the sons of farmers, farm workers or smallholders. They have worked hard for 10 or 12 years or more. I am talking not of those who went in for pig production a year or two ago because there were good prices to be had but about people who have specialised in it for years. It is those people, producing weaners and fattening animals, who have been hit. They cannot afford to go on any longer. Already many have gone out of business.
One of the most important things is to help smaller farmers who have their whole livelihood tied up in pig production.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it was the previous Government who did away with the feed formula, an action which did so

much to affect the price of feed in relation to the price of the end product?

Mr. Hawkins: The feed formula paid very well at the time and it may well be that it would be a good idea to reintroduce it now. It must be remembered that from 1970 to 1973 the pig herd increased and that pig farmers were doing pretty well up to January of this year. The trouble is that they cannot spread their income tax over three years and set losses against profits. Doing away with the pig feed formula at that time was the right thing to do. At present we need to introduce something similar.
My area has a large amount of sugar beet. It has probably one of the most modern beet factories in the whole country.

Mr. Watt: Mr. Watt rose—

Mr. Hawkins: I shall not give way for the moment. I know that the factory in Scotland was rightly shut, if that was what the hon. Gentleman wished to mention.
The costs of sugar beet on average land, with a rent of about £15 an acre, are working out at about £157 per acre, which is nearly £50 an acre more than in 1970. The yield on a five-year average of about 15 tons to the acre, plus haulage allowance and pulp allowance, has been only about £150 an acre. Unless we get a bigger payment and a quick contract within the next week or so, people will not sign up for sufficient acreage to keep housewives supplied with sugar during 1975. In practically every small market town in my constituency there is already a shortage of sugar. Farmers have said, both to me and publicly, that unless they get better contract terms they will at best break even and at worst will lose money, particularly this year, because with the dry season the crop will be very poor and probably will be down 10 per cent. on last year.
The Minister, in his last major speech—this is why, although there is a very good Minister on the Government Front Bench to answer the debate, I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to be present—said that he would shortly announce new contract terms. Farmers must plan their cropping acreage. Before long they will be well into the harvest and they will be planning for the year


ahead. It is therefore urgent that the contract terms should be agreed and greatly increased.
Since March 1974 costs of the following items have increased. Labour costs have increased by about £9·17 per acre due to the threshold agreements. The cost of spray chemicals has increased by 15 per cent. Machinery replacement costs have increased by about 12 per cent.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is milk costs. I want to draw attention to what has happened since January this year in the way of major cost increases. The cost of nitrogen, which is vital for the grasses, has increased from £35 to £56 a ton, and it is still rising. This must put about 1p on a gallon. Labour has increased from an average of £38 a week for a dairyman to £42·50, and I should think that further increases are inevitable. Feedstuffs increased by about £10 per ton between 1st February and 31st March, which will put about another 1p on a gallon.
I do not blame the Government for the cost explosion I do, however, blame them for not taking action on it and for not making certain that we have the crops necessary to feed consumers.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We have had a most useful and helpful debate. I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister himself is not here to reply. This debate, immediately before the Summer Recess, demands the presence of the right hon. Gentleman—more so than at any time I can remember in my 10 years in the House—because of the state of the agriculture industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I am not sniping at him. When he seeks leave to reply, I hope that he will be given the leave of the House. That is entirely up to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who has expressed great regret at the absence of the Minister and threatened not to give the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House.
My advice to the House would be to give leave to the hon. Gentleman provided that he answers in full all the questions asked by my hon. Friends and says what are the Government's intentions in the crucial months which lie ahead.

I am not trying to bamboozle my hon. Friend. Whether the Parliamentary Secretary has authority to answer the questions at that level, I do not know. I am a little concerned because the hon. Gentleman has been in the Department for only a relatively short time. If he has already grasped the problems and has authority to answer in this way, well and good; we shall understand that he will answer with the full weight of the Government and the Cabinet behind him.
Thousands of people engaged in agriculture are most anxious for the future, and before we rise for the Summer Recess we are entitled to full answers as to the Government's intentions.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I represent 4,000 farmers? It is high time that both sides of the House stopped playing politics with the problems of the agriculture industry. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets on with his speech, bearing in mind that the Conservative Government were in power for four years whereas my right hon. Friend has held office for only four or five months.

Mr. Jopling: I am not so glib as the hon. Gentleman in telling the House how many farmers I represent. All I will tell him is that my constituency comprises over half a million acres and that I represent many thousands of farmers.

Mr. Jones: Stop playing bogus politics. Get on with it.

Mr. Jopling: I will not be bamboozled by the hon. Gentleman shouting at me. He will have to stay and listen. The answers which the Minister must give to this debate will be of great importance for the future of agriculture.

Mr. Jones: Your lot spent four years doing nothing!

Mr. Jopling: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the figures. Let me put to the House the figures showing the expansion in the self-sufficiency percentage of various commodities between 1969 and 1970—

Mr. Jones: Mr. Jones rose—

Mr. Jopling: No, I shall not give way. I see that the Minister is trying to restrain his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones). He knows that the


figures to which I am about to refer are damaging to what his hon. Friend was saying. During the four years we were in power, the figure in respect of the self-sufficiency percentage for beef products rose from 72 to 86 per cent. If the hon. Member for Carmarthen thinks that that is failure, he does not know what he is talking about. I regard that as one of the greatest triumphs of the Conservative Government at that time. I must get on, however, because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
The debate has centred on the effect of rising prices on agriculture, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton referred to this point in a startling way. Everybody in agriculture knows how in the last 12 months the cost of feeding stuffs has increased enormously. This is basically due to the increase in the world price of grain. We also know the impact on the industry of the rise in oil prices, which of course has had an inflationary effect. Such commodities as fertilisers, insecticides and other chemical products so essential to agriculture have been affected.
Many commodities have suffered tremendous price rises. One has only to instance the increased cost of producing milk. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said that a rise of 8p per gallon of milk was the figure which he felt to be necessary. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board said the other day that he thought a rise of 3p per gallon was in line with events. Since I have not seen the detailed figures which must be available to the Minister I hesitate to say what should be a reasonable award to the industry, but I must ask him to say whether the Government intend to review the situation and think in terms of a special price injection, in the same way as the Conservative Government acted in this respect in the autumn of 1970.
It is reasonable to ask the Minister what are the Government's intentions. This is probably the last occasion in the course of this Session of Parliament that we shall be able to ask what is to be done about the escalation of prices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say whether they intend to have a special review. We have seen Press reports that this may be so.
There is a crisis in the milk industry. We are told that there are threats of un-

employment in the milk manufacturing industry. We know that firms involved in cheese and butter production have their problems. Over the past four years we have seen a tremendous escalation in British self-sufficiency in cheese and butter. It has increased from 14 to 22 per cent. in the case of butter. Those engaged in the production of butter and cheese now face the possibility of unemployment, and we want to know the Government's intentions.

Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures of self-sufficiency are ridiculously low and that only the injection of 8p a gallon will be sufficient to get the industry back on to the even expansion which the country needs so badly?

Mr. Jopling: I said just now that without the detailed figures, which are available to the Minister alone and possibly to others who have access to figures which have not been available to me, it would be wrong to say that 8p per gallon was the right figure. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has suggested 3p. I hesitate to say what is the right figure without access to the background information.
I also ask the Minister to tell us the Government's intentions with regard to the poultry industry. We are told that there is the possibility of a tremendous cut-down in the number of breeding birds, in egg production and in the poultry meat industry. This arises entirely from the background to this debate, which is increasing costs in the industry. These have caused the problem, and we would like to know the Government's intentions.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the beef problem. I did so myself when the Minister made his statement the week before last. On 26th June the right hon. Gentleman promised a guaranteed price for clean cattle of about £18 per cwt. He has brought forth his slaughter premium, which provides a headage payment in August rising to £32·34 in February. That is all very well, provided that the market prices for beef remain at about current levels. Even so, the returns to beef producers will fall a good way below what the Meat and Livestock Commission regards as adequate in modern circumstances. But what is to happen if market prices for beef fall during the next few months?
The Minister was asked this question when he made his statement two weeks ago. We got no answer. We must insist on an answer tonight. We must be told what is to happen in the next few months, when market levels tend to be high and prices traditionally tend to be low, if the price of beef generally in October and November drops to £16 per cwt. and if, even with the slaughter premium, the return to producers drops below £18 per cwt. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this could happen. His right hon. Friend did not answer this question, although it was put by many of my hon. Friends when we discussed this matter the week before last. We must have answers to these points, because we cannot go on for very long in this way.
I now turn to sugar, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Tiverton and for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). The Minister knows that there have been staggering rises in the costs of production of sugar during the season. I declare an interest as I grow sugar beet and am only too well aware of this problem. In certain parts of the country there are possibilities of low yields of sugar with the dry spring and the onset of virus yellows during the last few weeks.
I have met sugar beet growers from Suffolk and Norfolk during the last month and I know how despondent and anxious they are about the future. They are reluctant to commit themselves for 1975.
Sugar supplies in general to consumers in this country are in jeopardy and in doubt. Even now we have a situation in which sugar in the shops is in such short supply that we hear reports of retailers saying that unless customers buy £20 worth of other goods sugar will not be made available to them.
Surely this is the moment above all moments for the Ministry to tell us what its intentions are for the future. Has there ever been a time when it was more essential for the Government to make it clear that we are determined to fill any shortfall that there may be over the next year or so by increased production of sugar from our home resources?
What is the position about sugar in Europe? We are told that Mr. Lardinois, in the course of the last meeting that

took place in Brussels, was very reluctant to allow British producers to have an increased acreage. The Minister must assure us tonight, in the face of the Summer Recess, that if there is to be an increased acreage in Europe for sugar production, producers in the United Kingdom will have their fair and full share, because Mr. Lardinois has suggested that we should not have any increased acreage.
It seems fantastic that when we are short of sugar in the shops in Britain, when the housewife is finding it difficult to obtain enough sugar and when some of our Commonwealth suppliers are not fulfilling their contracts under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, we should be denied the opportunity of growing more sugar on our own land. Therefore, we must have a statement from the Minister on the future prospects of sugar production from our farms.
The whole background to this problem is that costs have been going up. The industry is in a state of uncertainty. I am sure that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, who keeps muttering but who has been silent for a few minutes, will agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the industry because of increased costs. The difficulty is that the industry cannot go on much longer on the kind of hand-to-mouth basis that the Minister has landed it with this time.
As for beef, the Minister has announced his slaughter premium which is to last until February. There is no indication of what is to happen after that. As for pigs, the Minister negotiated the premium of 50p per score a few weeks ago. That premium of 50p per score is to be tapered off until it disappears on 1st September.
The Minister's policy for our great agriculture industry, which faces a great crisis of escalating costs, provides no basis for farmers to plan for the future. Is it any wonder that those who build agricultural buildings and those who supply capital goods to the industry are finding that orders are rapidly drying up? There are again threats of unemployment, for example in the farm buildings sector. This is because the Government seem incapable of producing a long-term plan. Does not the Minister understand that this industry above all industries demands long-term policies and guarantees if it is to deliver the goods?

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I support the concept of a long-term policy. The hon. Member castigates the Government for not having introduced a special review. My farmers want to know why the Conservative Government did not introduce such a review last autumn when the situation was equally bad. Will the hon. Gentleman devote two or three minutes to explaining what the Opposition would do in such a situation? I ask him to set the matter out in detail and not to give merely the generalities.

Mr. Jopling: It would be wrong of me to take up the time of the House by explaining what the policy of my party would be. If the hon. Gentleman will wait a short time he will be told in full what my party's policy will be. A debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is not the occasion for the Opposition to explain in detail what their policies would be. It would be out of order were I to attempt to do so and it would not meet with your pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will find that before long a policy will evolve from the Conservative Party which will command the attention, agreement and support of vast sections of the industry.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me to that point, because it is a good one on which to end my speech. The industry demands long-term policies. We cannot continue on a hand-to-mouth basis. This is the last occasion the Minister will have before the harvest and farmers make their plans for the autmnn and the winter. It is necessary for the Government to state their policy so that farmers can approach the winter with the confidence which we believe is essential.

1.45 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): With the permission of the House—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I object to permission being given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Is the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) absolutely firm in his view that the Parliamentary Secretary should not be allowed to speak again?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When I tell the House that I shall take a certain course,

I take it. I told the Parliamentary Secretary an hour and a quarter ago of my position and he has had plenty of time to get the Minister of Agriculture, but he chose not to do so. I am sticking to my words.

Mr. Bishop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member had notice at 2.30 this afternoon of which Ministers were to reply to the various subjects raised in the debate.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No.

Mr. Bishop: It is shameful and it is showing contempt for the House that the hon. Gentleman initiates discussion on a subject in the debate, having known 12 hours earlier who was to reply, yet only now tells the House that he will not allow any reply to be given to the points he has raised.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), whom I respect, has, in his capacity as Opposition spokesman, said that it was important to have assurances given tonight to the House because the industry depends upon them. If the industry does not get the replies it has been seeking, it will suffer loss of confidence due to the fact that allegations have been made and the Government, who have a first-class record over the past four months, are denied the opportunity to answer this part of the debate, Other hon. Members who have also raised points will be denied the information they want.
I feel, therefore, that we should ask the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) whether, in deference to his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, he will reconsider his decision so that the House and the industry may be given the information which is requested.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement is incorrect. I was not informed at 2.30 yesterday afternoon. I know of no list posted anywhere in the House informing Members which Ministers would be replying. The position stands: I object to the Parliamentary Secretary addressing the House again.

Mr. Jopling: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretray has


said, I must reiterate what I said when I first rose. I appreciate that this is entirely a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop); he has an absolute right to take the line he has taken. But my advice to him, which I am sure many of my hon. Friends would support, is that I hope he will now allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply on the basis that he gives an absolute understanding that he will give full answers to all the questions we have put to him. That is a reasonable request in view of the climate and difficulties in the industry at this time. I hope that this is regatded as a fair compromise, but I do not know whether my hon. Friend will accept it—it is entirely a matter for him. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to give the undertaking I suggest, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my proposition.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in difficulty here. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), quite justifiably in the light of what he said earlier, has refused permission to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has said, some important points have been raised in the discussion of this subject and in the normal course of events a ministerial reply would be expected. Might the solution be for the Parliamentary Secretary to give an undertaking that the Minister of Agriculture will clarify some of the points raised at 3.30 tomorrow? That is a reasonable compromise which might be acceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Further to the point of order. May I seek your guidance and protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker? After a long and important debate affecting all our constituents, can you ensure that a reply is given?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Get the Minister.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) the No. 1 Opposition spokesman on agriculture?

Mr. Jopling: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will guard his words. My right hon. Friend who is the Shadow Minister is convalescing from a serious

operation which took place in the last few days. But for that, he would have been here tonight. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to raise that sort of subject.

Mr. Jones: Further to the point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows me better than that; I am not that sort of person. I understand why his right hon. Friend is not here, Since neither the Minister nor his shadow is here, for the sake of agriculture and our constituents may I suggest that we allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To deal with the successive points of order, the fact remains that, under the rules of the House, the House is in the hands of the hon. Member for Tiverton. If he chooses to withdraw his objection, the Minister will be able to reply. If he does not, I have no power to alter an established rule.

Mr. Bishop: Further to the point of order. I suggested that the hon. Member for Tiverton knew at 2.30 p.m. the list of Ministers who were to reply to these debates. I now understand that that may not have been so, and I withdraw it. However, the Opposition knew officially through the Whips' Office. They might have taken some action, had the hon. Gentleman given notice of his intention, to ensure that the reply which his hon. Friends say is so important would be given. It is deplorable that, in a debate initiated by the Opposition, on which many hon. Members opposite want replies, they should try to dictate not only the Minister who should reply but also what he should say, in that he should be allowed to speak only if he answers in a way which is acceptable to them.

Mr. Jopling: No one said that.

Mr. Bishop: If I am not allowed to reply to the debate, the country will see that Conservatisn has been put before the consumer and that the Conservatives are playing politics with our most important industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order. This has nothing whatever to do with the Whips, as the Parliamentary Secretary would have known had he been listening earlier. The Consolidated Fund Bill is a matter not of


Opposition and Government but of individual Members seeking redress before voting Supply. It is because the corrupt practice of Whips thinking that they can make agreements on matters which have nothing to do with them has crept in that some Members are determined to put a stop to it—and I am one of those Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since the hon. Member for Tiverton has maintained his objection, I call the next debate.

Orders of the Day — URBAN DEPRIVATION

1.55 a.m.

Mr. David Lane: After dealing with the countryside we must now turn our attention to a crisis in the cities which needs urgent action. The conditions in some of the worst of our urban areas should not be tolerated in a civilised society, certainly not by one as wealthy as our own. The contrast between these areas and the rest of the country is wholly unacceptable. There has been plenty of evidence over the last few years, plenty of studies and, most recently, an appeal by the Community Relations Commission in its annual report that action should be taken.
I doubt whether there is any need for a new agency of government to do the job, but I am certain that we need a new national effort. I want to urge on the Government that we should build on the experience obtained in other directions and develop a programme which will involve positive discrimination on a scale larger than ever before. If the Minister cannot reply to all my points tonight, I shall be happy to hear from him by letter.
The House is familiar with the general background. For a number of years a number of programmes have been operated by different Government Departments. The last Government increased, in particular, the resources devoted to the urban programme, but problems of co-ordination and scale have cropped up.
On co-ordination I fear that Whitehall has been tending to lag behind the developing techniques of the best local authorities, where departments have been brought together to work as one on what is really a single problem. On scale, we

are not as a nation devoting enough to tackling the problem. There was an important milestone under the last Government when the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), was given a co-ordinating job in dealing with urban problems. There was also the increase that the Government put into effect in the total scale of support for the work being done in the cities. As a result of my right hon. Friend's appointment the urban deprivation unit was established in the Home Office and before we left office promising ideas were already emerging from it.
I am glad that the Government have continued this co-ordinating role for the Home Office, and I disagree with the view implied in the current issue of the Economist that the Home Office is the wrong place for this role to be carried out. I believe that it is the right place and I am glad that it is continuing. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement on 18th July about his general strategy. What he called the reordering of priorities in favour of people living in the most acutely deprived areas continues the higher priority to which the previous Government were pledged.
I wish to make my remarks under five headings. The first is the general arrangements for helping these areas. The second is housing and the environment. The third is education. The fourth is health and social services, and the fifth is community involvement. If any hon. Members are alarmed that that might indicate a lengthy speech, let me reassure them and say that I can only skim over the surface.
First I deal with the general arrangements. This must be a partnership between central and local government and others concerned, not least the voluntary bodies. The main responsibility must be placed on the local authorities, with support and stimulus from the central Government.
Some people might prefer to set up a special agency, perhaps parallel to development corporations, which do particular jobs in particular parts of the country. I doubt the wisdom of that. I think that it is better to trust the local authorities to get on with the job, but we need to be certain that they will tackle it with vigour.
There is a phrase in the statement issued by the Home Office on 18th July about selected local authority areas being invited to put forward programmes. How do the Government envisage this working precisely? I am not thinking of the trial runs in five or six areas also mentioned in that statement. I am thinking of the main programme that the Government have now unveiled. The suggestion of selected local authority areas rather implies that the initiative will start from the central Government in inviting certain local authorities to make proposals. I should have thought it better to invite any local authorities which believe that they have a problem requiring the Government's new style of help to put forward their proposals, rather than to seem to make even an initial selection in Whitehall.
I believe that a three-stage procedure would be better. First, the Government should issue a general invitation to local authorities to make their bids. Secondly, the interested local authorities would do so. Thirdly, the Government would decide which to back, and in what order.
My second question is, how do the Government visualise satisfying themselves that the local authorities most concerned will tackle the matter as vigorously as we want? We must consider a number of possibilities. For example, should we require every local authority which is getting this new support from the Government to set up a special committee concerned only with the community programme in its area? Should we require some liaison role involving the regional offices of the Government Departments concerned, which would work closely with the local authority? Should there be an augmented team in the Home Office whose job it would be to keep in touch with what was happening, monitor progress and see that the knowledge of the best practice was passed all round the authorities concerned?
I turn to the areas themselves. The Home Office scheme refers to "comprehensive community programmes". I have no quarrel with that phrase. An alternative would be to devise a label for the areas. I cannot think of a better one than "social priority areas".
That is a matter of detail, but I have one or two questions about the areas

which go to the heart of the problem. First, can the Minister confirm that the figure of 10,000 inhabitants mentioned in the Home Office announcement will perhaps be the norm but that he will not exclude giving help to smaller areas in suitable cases? I think that that would be necessary. We should not be tied to a particular figure.
Will the Minister also confirm that he has in mind not only the inner-city and inner-ring areas of the big conurbations but certain areas which may equally need help in some of the older but small industrial towns and, as a third category, some of the modern estates on the fringe of big cities, where a number of families with social problems may happen to be congregated?
I mentioned the trial runs that are envisaged. I am very much in favour of them. I welcome them particularly because I believe that it is necessary to see what can be done by this new, very-strong-support technique in a small number of areas. The Home Office mentioned four or five in England and Wales and two in Scotland. Will the Minister say something more about the areas that the Government have in mind? From my experience in England and Wales, I think we should include one and may be two areas in London, certainly one in Birmingham and one in Liverpool. In Scotland there should obviously be one in the Glasgow area.
My next question concerns the time scale. How do the Government relate in a time sense the trial runs for this handful of areas and the main programme which will then develop? Over how many years do the Government see this extending? I hope that they will be able to announce the trial run areas well before the end of the year, if not this evening. I am sure they are right in envisaging five-year programmes for whichever areas are selected. I hope they will add to that that the five-year programmes should contain definite targets—for example, school buildings or the pupil-teacher ratio.
My last question at this stage is about the total cost. The House will probably feel that we shall need to spend over the years ahead a good many more millions—I would not put it more precisely than that—than we have spent in the past few


years. Will the Minister give any indication of the scale on which the Government are thinking or the terms of the financing? Will the terms be like the financial arrangements for the urban programme, or something different?
I have been speaking about the general arrangements between Government and local government and the areas concerned. The programmes must clearly be tailor-made for each area. Subject to that, I have one or two brief suggestions for what might be the ingredients of the programmes under the headings I have mentioned. The fist concerns housing and the environment. I assume that these areas will have in most cases the housing action area treatment, using the powers that are given to local authorities by housing legislation. We must aim at achieving a socially-balanced community in such areas—for example, by encouraging the voluntary housing movement and the extension of home ownership. We must give still more attention to improving and making the best use of existing housing stock—in other words, renewal rather than comprehensive redevelopment.
For the environment we need still more low-cost projects for brightening up the surroundings in the various ways that experience has already shown are most successful.
For education the sort of thing I have in mind would be giving as much priority as possible to the areas of special need when extending pre-school provision, giving more attention at the same time to the outdated secondary schools and stimulating children's interest in their last year at those schools. I am sure we shall have to consider further special allowances for the teachers in these areas. We shall have to put more effort into English language teaching for children and adults in immigrant families and into developing closer links between the schools and the immigrant parents.
Last year, in September, the Select Committee on Race Relations and immigration reported on the education of immigrant children. That was a document of major importance for education and for the future of race relations in this country. I hope that there will be a positive response from the Department of Education and Science. Has the Minister any idea when we will get any

response from the Department? It was promised before the Summer Recess.
Under the heading of health and social services, the sad fact is that so far the areas of urban stress, despite their greater needs, have had available relatively fewer resources in terms of manpower and money than have been available to the more prosperous areas. The first essential is that total resources at the disposal of society should be distributed proportionately to social needs. In the health services it will mean more doctors and more health workers and more health centres over the next few years in these areas. In the social services, it will he necessary to seek out positively, and to find new ways of doing so, the families which need help and to encourage them to use that help.
My last heading is "community involvement", which is last but not least in importance. It is vital that the community should be involved actively in the efforts to improve the conditions of living in such areas. The pressure in recent years for more community involvement in decision-making has been growing. I welcome this trend. I am sure that we can turn it to constructive advantage, although we are all aware of the problems it sometimes creates.
It would be useful to have in most if not all of these areas some kind of a neighbourhood council, if it does not exist already. We should leave it to the local authorities to devise suitable methods of public consultation and participation according to the character of the area concerned. But I would expect to be created in each area at a very early stage some kind of community advice centre. Also in every area the voluntary workers should be given a vital rôle to play. They and their organisations have already shown in existing urban programmes what valuable suggestions they can contribute. The programmes of the local authorities must encourage them and get their co-operation, because there is a great, untapped reserve of good will and energy there, particularly among young people.
I have skimmed over a wide area. As a nation, it is time that we gave new hope and more help to families trapped in urban deprivation, whatever their race and colour. I urge the Government to


move forward boldly as far and as fast as national resources will allow.

2.13 a.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has highlighted the essential problem of the whole urban aid programme, that of co-ordination. Many worthy people seek to assist the community in one way or another but their efforts are often, not necessarily misplaced, but not used to the best advantage because they are not co-ordinated with the local authority's ideas and the efforts of other voluntary bodies.
The Home Office really finishes up with literally the end product; the people who do not get through the rigours of modern life. They include, unfortunately, many young people who now benefit from community service orders and who formerly went into remand homes and other places into which they need not have gone if a little more community care of them had been exercised. Sadly, others go to prison for longer periods.
The nation has awakened too late to the problems of the inner cities. Whoever has been responsible for the past—both Conservative and Labour Governments are to blame—we are now in a position to ensure that we remedy the situation, which we see very clearly in every major city.
If the Home Office has to deal with the end product, let us work our way backwards through the other Departments to see what can be done to stop the problem at source. I have always believed in prevention rather than cure, and our money is well invested when it is put into a commodity which can help to protect existing advantages and develop others in years to come.
The Department of Education and Science is largely divorced, particularly at local authority level, from the conversion process which can go on with young people and older people in overcrowded city centres in helping them to cope more gradually and more beneficially with the rigours of life.
Thirdly, we have the next aspect of the conversion process, the Department of the Environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has already spoken of housing renewal, but it is with

some sadness that I say that I am told that at present there are people who, through no fault of their own, qualified for improvement grants under the previous Government's Act but did not receive them and who, because of the wording of the new Housing Bill, will not be able to get a grant with which they can afford to make up together with their own money to improve their homes. These are the very people in the middle of cities that we need to help. Therefore, if the Minister of State has any influence over his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, I hope he will use it to back the request that I made to the Secretary of State way back in May that he should look at some of these problems with a more sympathetic nature.
Then there is the other aspect of housing with which we have tinkered for a long while—the homeless families. They, very often through no fault of their own, are evicted from old and crumbling properties only to be put into so-called hostels which, while I would not plead for them to be comfortable hotels, are really the worst restart we could give to help split-up families in any city centre. It revolts me to see droppings of animals in the cellars of such places, and to see holes in walls between bathrooms and lavatories and many of the other injustices which these people have to face, on top of having their family split up with the husband in one place and probably the wife and some of the children in one of these so-called hostels for homeless families.
It is in those places that many wardens are trying to give people a sense of responsibility to restart. These are the very people whom we are not serving through our urban renewal programme. In recreational and holiday centres we make many attempts, one of which I shall come to shortly. At the beginning of this cycle, however, we now have what I term the voluntary push, a positive push for action. It started under the previous Government. It is obviously continuing. There is an in-depth study going on in Liverpool at present. While I hold no responsibility for what goes on across the Mersey I, naturally, in the sense that my local authority is rehousing people from that conurbation, have an interest in seeing that city centre helped by urban aid in its own renewal. With


the movement across the river and, indeed, in our own roots in Wallasey we have a problem of urban renewal where new communities have grown up as simply concrete slabs and nothing more.
It seems that the crisis of today is psychological as much as a crisis of cement and lack of care. In terms of homes, that is a local authority responsibility and one with which local authorities are seeking to cope under enormous pressures. But it seems also that problems are being put in the way by unnecessary restrictions, by discouraging many people who would be willing to let part of their home to other people, homes in which to be rehoused to restart life in urban centres, the freedom to do so. People are frightened to provide new homes in that situation.
Among these things we have next the problem of education. This education of young people who at present are likely to stray can be helped through the urban aid programme. One of the things I find most depressing among youngsters all over the country is the low level of ambition to which they strive. This is because their sights are simply not set any higher than getting through the remainder of the years in school and then earning money, with no real sense or urgency or interest in the type of job they may take up in the future. If through special projects in holiday times we can overcome some of this low level of ambition among schoolchildren, we shall be saving Government money in the long term because they will be more able to cope for themselves in their later years.
A great deal of encouragement should come from the Department of Education and Science and from the pressure of Home Office Ministers to the local authorities. Schools should be encouraged to offer their facilities after hours to a far greater extent than currently happens. In my constituency we are fortunate in that we have some forwardlooking staff who do their best to make schools available after hours. There are very many people needing further recreational opportunities. Young volunteers do their best to provide the facilities but many schools lie idle for much of the time when they could be used.
I come now to the recreation facilities provided by the community. There is no point in the Government providing

urban aid without the co-ordination of other Departments. There is no point in communities trying to help one another, in all—age groups and all types of people, unless we can iron out some of the incredible red tape with which we tie ourselves in modern government. We have one instance in my constituency. We are seeking to arrange that a sports club may offer facilities to children who would otherwise have no proper football club and no training facilities.
At the moment we are seeking to persuade one of our nationalised industries to sell the sports club, the Poulton Victoria Sports and Social Club, to the community because it is in an area which has no other land that can be used for this purpose. It is in a high-density area where there is nothing for the kids who want to use their leisure hours usefully. Yet we are tied up in red tape and trouble from beginning to end. But the battle is on.
We need in the urban aid programme to give a sense of purpose and of belonging to youngsters from school age to adulthood. If we can do this, the need for urban aid will decline over the next 50 years. Unless we put the money in now and obtain co-ordination at a local level as a result of pressure from Ministries, I do not see that we shall be able to cease urban aid in 50 years' time. It will have to be extended over a much longer period.
If we are to preserve the health of future generations there must be co-ordination in all aspects of urban aid. This probably means freeing the hands of the Home Office and allowing it to intervene in the work of other Departments to make sure that people in need get the service which Urban Aid is seeking to provide.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—far more successfully than my attempts two hours earlier to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Having remained in the Chamber until 2.30 a.m. I should like to express a few points on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane).
If any Minister wants advice on how to dispose of vast resources I shall be only too pleased to assist. I represent an area which has enough problems to warrant an


entire Cabinet to look after it alone. It is in parts a declining urban area which young people are leaving for other places. It is an elderly population. The fabric of much of the town is declining because of neglect. The terrifying thing is the realisation, when listening to debates such as this, that there are so many similar areas desperately in need of enormous injections of capital. It will require hundreds of millions of pounds to rectify the neglect of centuries. I cannot see an end to the problems unless we as a country are able to create the wealth so that resources can be diverted into these areas of need.
Certain areas in the structure plan of my county borough are classed, in fine language, as areas of multiple deprivation. Problems go hand in hand in these areas. We do not simply have problems of bad schools built in the nineteenth century. Alongside aged schools there are enormous environmental problems of pollution, of poor social services and of poor public transport. There is a deficiency of recreational facilities and there are bad shopping facilities. All these problems are bound together and produce a dour setting in which thousands of people work in stark contrast to other areas, even in my constituency, which enjoy much better facilities.
I refer to an area known as Darlaston which at one time was in the county of Stafford but which is now in the Walsall metropolitan district. People in this area tolerate conditions which would be regarded as intolerable in many other areas. Yet in other areas in my constituency, as money is put into them, there has been a regeneration. Such areas could have gone into total decline, particularly as a result of housing neglect, but there is now an element of hope because of the creation of a general improvement area, for instance in Caldmore, and because its problems are being dealt with as an integrated whole. People are beginning to feel a sense of pride and of belonging. There is now a community spirit in an area which otherwise would have died in five or 10 years.
Therefore, I look upon this area of Caldmore, which has received much central Government and local government aid, as a sign of hope for the future. We may talk about the problems of urban

aid and of the integration of central Government and local government programmes, but it is daunting when one considers so many like areas which are in urgent need of financial aid. We have money available for a limited number of areas, but what about areas which are not in any Ministry list?
I hope that there will be a much greater element of co-ordination between the various services of central Government and local government, focussing on specific areas. Only if we break the concept of departmentalism in local government and central Government are we likely to achieve the level of provision of services which most people would regard as adequate.

2.28 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): It is a tragedy that we should be discussing the question of urban deprivation at two o'clock in the morning in an almost empty House vibrating with all the usual signs of the end of term. In this debate we are to discuss a multitude of subjects, all of which are espoused with deep fervour by the hon. Members who wish to raise them, but not one of them is as important as the subject raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane).
The reason why there are no people in the Press Gallery to witness these proceedings and why no word of this debate will be reported in the national newspapers is that this subject has such a low priority in our thinking and spending programmes that it arouses virtually no interest. Yet if there were to be in one of our big cities a situation such as that which obtained in Watts, in Los Angeles, at one time in recent American history, and if a similar pattern were to spread throughout our major cities, we would not have a President's commission to consider it; we would have Select Committees and Questions in the House, and we would probably debate the subject ad nauseam. The tragedy is that probably in the 1990s the Select Committees would present their portentous reports and would say "If only we had considered this matter in greater detail in the 1970s". We did not and we have not done so, either as a Labour Government or a Conservative Government.
The order of priority for urban deprivation is too low and it should be raised.


The hon. Member for Cambridge does us a service by raising it tonight. I only hope that he will go on raising it at more appropriate times, if only for the sake of my constitution, and I hope that other hon. Members will go on raising it in Questions and in speeches, because the priority must be raised.
We even talk in a language which is incomprehensible to the average newspaper reporter and, therefore, to the average reader of the Press. What is one to make of a statement contained in a wonderful speech that has been prepared for me by my Department on this subject? It reads:
The House will be aware of the other initiatives in this field, including 12 community development projects, the arrangements for making special grants available to areas of high immigration population, the three inner area studies and the studies concerned with the 'cycle of deprivation'.
That sentence bespeaks the reason for the lack of interest. We do not talk in real language about what the problems are. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has done us a courtesy tonight.
We are talking about poor people in areas which have become depressed by years of neglect so that they live in inadequate housing and go to bad schools serviced by an inadequate number of teachers, without all the facilities which are required to bring up the balance of the education they get. They go from school to homes which are deprived of many of the things that are regarded as the normal standard of life of middle-class families, and they therefore continue an unending cycle of deprivation because they carry it on into the next generation.
The problem is complicated by the fact that a great many of those who suffer in these areas of deprivation are black and immigrant and therefore add to the deprivation felt by the indigenous population of those areas. They add newness, inadequacy of language and the cultural differences which go to make up racial discrimination within our inner cities.
It was at this point that the Labour Government in 1968 began the first tentative approach to doing something about the problem of the inner city. In 1969 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a programme of urban aid with the object of trying to assist immi-

grant communities in areas of deprivation in the inner cities. That programme was passed into legislation in the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act in 1969, and so far about £30 million has been expended in a series of programmes. The programmes vary from help with nursery education to helping gipsy children to go on holiday, programmes for hostels for West Indians and a vast range of experimental programmes, all of which are peanuts against the problems we face but none the less of immense value in getting experimental programmes on their feet.
In addition we have the 12 community development projects. Those projects are not a means for channelling money into areas of need. They were designed to put teams of articulate, young people into areas where the population, though deprived, was inarticulate, to help those people to express their own sense of grievance and to put pressure on the authority to do something about the situation. The teams have been successful in carrying out that task to the extent that many local councillors wish they did not exist, but the pressure has been productive of change in a number of areas and has brought to light the kind of deprivation we want to tackle. But simply because it was never intended that those programmes should themselves provide the money or resources to end those instances of deprivation, that has not been the way to continue. It has been a way of educating, of enlightening those who live in the areas about services available, but is not the way to put an end to deprivation.
The Conservative Government instituted the three inner area studies which had the objective of putting a consultant in charge of a programme in three cities to look at the total area and produce a report about what was required. We have not got much further with those. The special grants available to areas of high immigrant population included the urban programme, but they also included Section 11 grants to allow local authorities to obtain staff to cope with extra needs caused by immigrant populations. As, however, will be seen, in trying to unwind the Americanisms that beset the titles we have adopted for our various programmes, the fact is that we have not got very far and we have not done very


much. The Urban Deprivation Unit is an attempt to see whether we can begin a comprehensive programme that will get rid of urban poverty.
Let me outline the way in which we have approached the matter in building on the foundation left to us by the Conservative Government. We reckon that over England and Wales as a whole there are probably about 50 areas that qualify as areas of intense urban deprivation and about 40 areas in Scotland. To make those areas suitable places to live in, one has to channel into them huge resources. It is not the object of the Home Office, which has been given the task of overseeing the urban deprivation programme, to provide those resources, nor need it do so. It is not a question of providing the extra money on top of the existing programmes. The real question is to find within existing programmes the right order of priority so that money is spent in urban areas of acute need rather han in other areas.
To give a contemporary but somewhat controversial example, one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently decided to change the way in which the Government assisted local authorities with rates was precisely that the allocation left to us by the Conservatives was unfair to those areas of highest need—namely the inner cities.
The object of the exercise in part was to try to channel more of the available resources towards those areas of most acute need. We know what happened. There was an immediate outcry from those who had to pay more as a result. But that is at the very heart of the problem. We shall never have enough resources to make this a land of plenty for everyone in every area. We have to decide whether there are areas which relatively have more and therefore ought to be denied further access to Government resources, and whether there are areas which have less and therefore ought to have more channelled into them.
The object of the studies which are the first trial runs of this new programme is to select a number of those 90 areas—initially four or five in England and Wales and a couple in Scotland—to put in

people who will work with the local authorities and the local voluntary agencies, to try to determine how they can best use available resources to meet the needs of their areas and to throw up through this process the way in which existing programmes are inadequate to meet those needs. Housing action areas, improvement grants and Section 4 grants for immigrant teachers will all be utilised in channelling the money where it is most needed.
The object of the exercise is ultimately to produce reports on these areas which will indicate what has been done as a result of close co-operation between Government, local authority and voluntary agencies and to indicate also what needs to be done and where are the gaps in the existing programmes.
In those general terms the approach seems nebulous, but in Leeds, for instance, when the Department of the Environment recently got together with the local authority to produce a transport study for the inner city and to look also at what could be done about pedestrian precincts, although no greater resources were channelled into Leeds than would have been available from the existing programme, the speed in meeting the problems of the motor car was enormous. Coming from York, where we have talked about pedestrian precincts for the past 10 years and we have one street laid down, I look with envy at Leeds. That was merely because the local authority was backed by strong central Government initiative to use the available resources wisely, coherently and with the greatest impact to solve the problem.
That example is not inapposite, because transportation is one problem of deprivation. The provision of public tranport is crucial to solving problems of how to move poor people about in areas of deprivation. That too, therefore, would be part of any trial run.
We hope to get these trial runs going in these seven areas as quickly as possible, to have them report within about nine months on what they think the programme ought to include for each area, and to work that programme out in a period of about five years. We reckon that the cost might be about £1 million in each case. Relatively, however, the cost is not the most important factor. What is important is how we use the


existing resources much more effectively in those areas to get a better result than we have managed so far.
We hope that this venture will grow. It is not intended that we should sit and wait for the seven studies to come out before we take any further initiative. It is hoped that this whole programme will be an increasing part of public expenditure over the years. If it is to be an increasingly important part of public expenditure, it can only be so if hon. Members keep pressing to find out what is happening and to give it greater aura of priority.
The hon. Member for Cambridge asked me a number of specific questions. I think that I have answered most of them. He asked particularly about the Select Committee's report on education. I doubt whether we shall get the reply out before the end of the Session, but it is at a very advanced stage and we hope shortly to publish a White Paper which will set out that reply.
Although the response to the Select Committee's report on Housing is not so advanced, we hope to deal with that at a fairly advanced stage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not making any party point about delay. No report except one from the Select Committee Race Relations and Immigration has yet received a Government reponse. We have made it a matter of the utmost priority that all such reports should receive a Government reply within the near future. Education will certainly be the first.
I do not think I need deal with any of the other matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman. If I have left any out, I undertake to write to him and to deal with them later.

Orders of the Day — OIL INSTALLATIONS (SECURITY)

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Monday 22nd July, in Bo'ness, West Lothian, it was discovered that part of the pipeline being laid between Grange-mouth and South Queensferry had been blown up. Who did it, how and why, we do not yet know. An organisation calling itself the Tartan Liberation Army claimed credit for that act. I refer to this incident because it is a portent of

what can and could happen to vulnerable oil-related installations. After Flix-borough, nothing need be left to the imagination.
Since first class minds such as Professors Erickson and Thomson and Heriot-Watt have devoted a lot of time to the problem and since some of us spent last Tuesday at the Ministry of Defence under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy at a most worthwhile seminar, and since I believe that speeches on the Consolidated Fund Bill should be unselfishly terse, I shall confine myself to the following questions, of which I have given notice.
The first, is the question of ministerial responsibility. Currently there are at least 11 Government Departments involved. There are the Home Office and the Scottish Office, which are responsible for emergency services; the Department of Energy with oil responsibility: the Department of Employment with health and safety responsibilities; the Department of Industry with responsibility for equipment and supply; the Department of Trade with responsibility for specifications and regulations; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is concerned with the important issues of fishing; the Department of the Environment which has pollution and other responsibilities; the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office with a major interest; and, as always the Treasury.
It would be very easy to assume that there is necessarily confusion and to jump to the facile conclusion that a Ministry of Maritime Affairs should be set up. I make no such suggestion. There has been enough shuffling around, and the Civil Service cannot be mucked about any more. What is important is not that there should be a new Ministry but that responsibility should be clearly defined.
One suggestion hawked around is that either the Lord President of the Council or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be given overall responsibility. I do not think that this is realistic, since anyone who knows Whitehall, as I do as the late Dick Crossman's PPS when he was Lord President, knows that the shoestring support that one gets is totally unsuitable for undertaking such a major


national task. No. The job of leadership must be vested in one of the great Departments of State.
I therefore ask: do the Government accept that, for security on land, leadership should be vested in the Scottish Office and the Home Office, and, at sea, in the Ministry of Defence? If not, why not?
To those who shudder at the suggestion that the Ministry of Defence should be given overall responsibility for security and considerable powers in the North Sea, I make these observations. First, in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" the Navy took de facto charge. Secondly, such a task gives a rôle to the Navy which, while not as romantic as Indian Ocean patrols may sound, is of vital economic importance to Britain.
If the Navy were given responsibilities for security and for anti-pollution in the North Sea, would some adjustment be made to the accounting system, which would chalk up to defence expenditure work that really should be marked against a civilian appropriation?
A related question is whether the ratepayers are to undertake the cost of services at sea. Is it satisfactory that the Chief Constable of Aberdeen should be responsible for 27 oil rigs in his parish? I ask this question having told the Scottish Office on Thursday that it should obtain at first hand Chief Constable Morrison's concern about pinpointing executive responsibility for action in case of emergency.
On land, what consultation takes place about security with the contractors? I am told that there is very little consultation. Nor, I gather, has very much thought been given to security at the design stage of pipelines and other equipment. What are the Government going to do in view of the increasing technological competence of malefactors? Are orders to be placed for specially designed small craft? What consideration is being given to air-cushion vehicles? What thought is being given to the "little buggy" submarine, useful both for security and for anti-pollution work? What is to be done about standby vessels? I understand that at present these vessels have to seek refuge in bad weather, when they are most needed.
I understand that in the Gulf of Mexico and the Persian Gulf there have been major fires and major accidents. It is only a matter of time before a major incident takes place in the North Sea. Let us be under no illusions: we are dealing with a growth area in national priorities and what should be an expanding commitment of some permanence.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on bringing this matter before the House, even at this late hour. He has done something to make people face up to a considerable threat. In spite of the prominence this subject has received since a soviet vessel harassed the gas rig on 26th June, I have been depressed by the number of people, even in the House, who have refused to regard this as a serious threat. We should, therefore, perhaps be grateful to the Soviet Union for—possibly inadvertently—giving us this warning of what is certainly a growth area in national priorities, as the hon. Member put it.
Incidently I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what response has been evoked from the Soviet authorities, as I gather that representations were made to them either by the Foreign Office or by the Ministry of Defence, following the incident on 26th June. I shall be interested to hear what the Soviet authorities say their vessel was doing near the rig.
The hon. Member is making the House and, I hope, the country, face up to this threat. It is a military threat, perhaps, at one extreme. It is a terrorist threat. It is perhaps, a threat from any of the growing number of lunatic groups which seem to infest this and an increasing number of countries. Although it may seem to be difficult to hijack an oil rig, anybody who has been on an oil rig can well imagine that it would not be impossible to hijack one.
We are not talking so much about oil rigs as about oil pipelines. We are considering thousands of miles of pipelines which could be blown up. Often these pipelines are not adequately buried—pipelines on the bottom of the sea, for instance, might be only lightly covered. It costs £1 million a mile to lay a pipeline,


and so we are talking about vast sums of money.
It has been estimated that within 10 years there will be 200 production platforms in the North Sea and 100 oil rigs. The cost of the oil rigs varies and no doubt will continue to vary, but we are talking about installations worth about £50 million at present prices, and it is vital that these are defended. We are also talking about what is probably this country's biggest single new asset—the offshore oil reserves—which will be worth at least £6,000 million a year at present prices within a decade from now.
We are talking about an asset that will almost certainly put our balance of payments into surplus within the decade. We are also talking about an industry that will need £500 million worth of fabrication work every year and £300 million worth of supplies every year. There is a vast financial interest involved.
We cannot gamble with such a great asset, and the threat to the security of oil rigs and production platforms can no longer be disregarded or dismissed. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on the speed with which it has appeared to move since 26th June, but I am not sure that I can congratulate it on the speed with which it moved before 26th June. I wonder whether in the Minister's reply we might be told something about the Ministry's activities.
The Press has been awash with rumours. There have been rumours of conscription, but I do not think that that would be a sensible solution to the problems of security in these installations. I gather that a Ministry of Defence committee has recommended conscription. There has also been a recommendation that there might be a sea traffic control system, with fast patrol boats, marine commandos and helicopter bases up and down the East Coast of Scotland so that helicopters could fly out to oil rigs in emergencies if rigs were threatened.
There have been suggestions that a reserve force might be utilised. As the hon. Member for West Lothian has suggested, the vulnerability of onshore installations such as refineries must also be considered. It would be within the capacity of members of the TAVR to guard onshore installations. The Ulster Defence Regiment is doing this sort of

work in Ulster, although the members of that force do not seem to enjoy it.
There have been requests, quite rightly, that oil companies must take stricter security measures on rigs, apart from defence measures which may be taken through the Armed Forces. We must consider whether we can link up a defensive system within NATO, particularly with the Norwegians, especially in the light of the fact that one of the reasons why the boundaries have not been drawn for the northern Norwegian shores is that the Norwegians have not been able to come to an agreement with the Russians, due to security problems. I am sure there are good reasons for our considering this matter within the NATO context.
The hon. Member for West Lothian also rightly raised the position of the police in all of this. As a Member for Aberdeen, I think it is unreasonable in present circumstances—it will become increasingly unreasonable—to insist that the Aberdeen city police force should be responsible for any matter of law and order that might arise on oil rigs hundreds of miles away—north-east of the Shetlands, for instance. It was originally a sensible idea that the supply base should provide the law and order, but most sensible people would now agree that it is outliving its usefulness and should be reconsidered.
We shall need more men and money to defend these platforms. A letter in the Scotsman on Saturday estimated the cost of any defensive system as £1,000 million. It is not sensible to try to cost a system at this stage, but that is not an outrageous figure. We should not try to use our existing forces to defend the rigs. The British Army is stretched enough as it is. The Secretary of State for Defence has referred the matter to the Defence Scientific Advisory Council, I understand, so we do not expect to hear any definitive plan tonight. I hope, however, that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us some interim guidelines as to the Government's thinking and say when it is hoped that the council will report.

3.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am flattered by the attendance. I am sure that all hon. Members present have come to hear my interesting reply.
I always admire the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose diligence in pursuing a variety of good causes is well known. I must confess that at three o'clock in the morning I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about anything. Hon. Members will forgive me if I do not reply to all the specific questions which have been raised, some of which are a matter of defence, rather than my narrower responsibility for law and order. There is a difference, I am told.

Mr. Dalyell: That illustrates the un-satisfactoriness of the position. My first attempt was to place this subject with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will appreciate that no one fights for the chance to reply to a debate at three o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a good answer.

Mr. Brown: I had better not pursue that. Some of the more important and immediate aspects are properly a matter for the Scottish Office.
The Vote under which this subject is debated refers to
Measures taken by the Government to protect North Sea oil installations on land and sea.
There is a difficulty in defining this area of responsibility. That is why I said that as far as law and order is concerned it is properly a matter for the Scottish Office. Ministerial responsibility is clear in the sense that it always is; that does not mean that it is effective or properly co-ordinated or could not be improved.
I accept that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that there should be yet another Department but he seeks the assurance, which I give him willingly, that the maximum attention will be paid to the co-ordination of facilities that are expected to be and are provided in this important matter. That obviously includes the Scottish Office and the Home Office on the law and order side. Some of the other questions are appropriate for the Ministry of Defence. The kind of naval vessels required and gereral security from any potential military aggressor are two obvious examples.
The views expressed at the seminar which was held at the initiative of my

hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and to which the Chief Constable of Aberdeen was invited on the initiative of the Scottish Office, are an indication that these general matters have been taken on board.

Mr. Sproat: Was the conference called before or after the Soviet vessel harassed a gas rig on 26th June?

Mr. Brown: I am pretty certain that it was called before. The arrangements had been made before. In other words, it was not just a panic reaction to some sort of incident. There have been incidents with foreign vessels before. A vessel was supposed to have been on the Clyde the other day, and I am not aware that oil has been discovered there so far. We should not make too much of it, therefore. It is not likely to lead to an outbreak of war so far as I can see, and I hope I do not cause a diplomatic incident with that observation.
My hon. Friend's points are certainly relevant to the security of pipelines. I know that the Tartan Liberation Army is not represented in this House, but there have been two incidents and my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to a matter of great concern. Not only are oil installations tremendously valuable; they are dangerous. I do not think that anyone underestimates the problems of them or the temptations they present to any group of terrorists—and this is a world-wide problem—who are determined to cause the maximum havoc and dislocation in any community.
At my initiative, and before the result of the ballot of speakers and subjects on the Bill was known, I arranged to be in Aberdeen during the next few weeks. I have already made arrangements to have informal discussions, partly for my benefit, with interested parties on this subject, including the Chief Constable of Aberdeen.
The question of what happens on the rigs and some of the associated problems is related to the ports from which the supplies are sent. It may be that with the increasing numbers of oil rigs that provision will need to be reviewed. In any case it will need to be reviewed under the reform of local government, and the indications are that we shall probably be doing something about it before May


1975. The problem will be given urgent attention.
I can only thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important subject. It is a matter of concern to his constituents because of the local incidents and I assure him that, as always, the Scottish Office will give it urgent and efficient attention. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that I have covered all the points raised.

Orders of the Day — KILBRANDON REPORT

3.10 a.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce the debate on this most important subject of devolution within the United Kingdom. It is of great importance and relevance not only for Northern Ireland Members but for my hon. Friends from Scotland and Wales who also sit on the Opposition side of the House.
It is a matter of deep regret that the House was not given an opportunity to deal with the subject much earlier in the Session. It is deplorable that we have only a small group of Members applying our minds to one of the most far-reaching and fundamental developments this Session.
The debate is important for two reasons. The first is the need for unity and the preservation of unity within the United Kingdom. Secondly, the Government must always be seen to have integrity. The whole House would have liked to apply itself to safeguarding the unity of the United Kingdom by discouraging separatism. While that would be acknowledged by most hon. Members, many of the regions have aspirations. They have a historical and cultural background which can find expression only in a devolved assembly ensuring fair and informed legislation.
It is also a matter of regret that while the Government intend to produce a White Paper in the autumn they have not afforded the House—a full House—the opportunity to share their thinking. The Government would benefit greatly from a comprehensive debate on the subject.
This debate and the White Paper will be of special interest and relevance to the Ulster people, because the constitutional Convention in Ulster will be able to discover the thinking of the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to devolved assemblies or parliaments. It is unlikely now that the Convention will benefit from an exhaustive study, debate and record of the findings of this House because the debate has been neglected.
The Ulster Unionists desire the unity of the United Kingdom. We desire complete parity within the United Kingdom. Therefore, whatever emerges from the debate and from the ensuing White Paper will be given serious consideration by the Ulster Convention when it is formed and when its gets under way.
Chapter 11 of the Kilbrandon Report outlines certain central principles without defining them specifically. It states, for instance, that there is a need for
political and economic unity of the United Kingdom".
Political unity is of vital importance. I illustrate that from the point of view of the Ulster situation. Political unity is vital because of the close proximity of a foreign sovereign State which claims control over part of the United Kingdom. Any legislative assembly in Northern Ireland would therefore need to have control over its own security and judiciary.
Because these powers and these matters are transferred under Scheme A in the consultative document we would see the scheme as the very minimum, with perhaps even more transferred powers and matters envisaged in Scheme A. We can appreciate and accept that no such feeling exists in very many other parts, if any, within the United Kingdom, but if we wish to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom such transferred matters and powers should be available.
The Kilbrandon Report emphasises the need for economic unity. We in Northern Ireland, with our friends from Scotland and Wales, are conscious of the tremendous generosity which has been afforded to us, but it would be wrong to limit the concept of economic unity to this moment. There has been a tremendous contribution in the past particularly from our Welsh friends. There is at present a fundamental contribution from Ulster in terms of agriculture. I believe that this


will become very much more important when we realise that half our balance of payments deficit is represented by the importation of food. Of course the time will very quickly come when our Scottish friends produce enough oil for us to exist without any great albatross of financial liability. Therefore, it is true to say that economic unity must not be viewed in terms only of the present. People have made a marvellous contribution to the United Kingdom in the past and are doing so now. Some of the regions will do even more in the days to come.
The second central principle expressed in the Kilbrandon Report is that of safeguarding democracy. Whatever scheme emerges should bear no resemblance to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That was a negation of democracy since it gave special privileges to the minority for all time. I believe that the will of the majority must be reflected in ministerial responsibility within any regional parliament or assembly. That responsibility must be produced by the majority party. The consultative document, particularly in Scheme A, appears to me to be the minimum requirement for a serious attempt at a regionally devolved parliament.
I turn now to the question of proper representation at Westminster. In pursuit of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom I am loth to rob our Scottish friends of the representation they now have in this House. The same applies to our Welsh friends. Indeed, I am not anxious to reduce the representation of others so much as I am to increase Ulster's representation to at least 17 Members of this House. That is the number given in the Kilbrandon Report.
The reason for insisting upon proper representation is that Northern Ireland is without a regional legislative body. When matters of national, international and regional importance are discussed in this House, the people of Northern Ireland have only two-thirds of the total vote they should have on every major issue, including issues which determine the destiny of Ulster, while Scotland and Wales do not suffer at all. I repeat that I am not anxious to reduce the representation of the Scots and the Welsh so much as I am

to achieve proper and full representation of the people of Northern Ireland.
As foreign affairs will remain always a reserved matter to the central sovereign Parliament, it is vital that a region or province should have full and proper representation at the seat of central Government to influence legislation. The importance of this I again illustrate from the Northern Ireland experience.
In Ulster sovereign control is at least claimed by a foreign State, albeit in a partial sense. In this critical situation affecting foreign affairs, it is vital that this House should reflect the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That can happen only if Northern Ireland expresses itself not in terms of a two thirds representation but by its full representation. The problem of foreign affairs legislation will surely increasingly arise, especially in relation to the Common Market. Therefore it is vital for every region—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England —to have full representation to safeguard the peculiar interests of each.
I want now to refer to the remoteness and yet the complete paternalism of the central Government. Unfortunately I must again illustrate the point by referring to Northern Ireland. Without indicting anyone, I think it is true to say that decisions have been made about Northern Ireland by some Members of this House who know as much about Northern Ireland as I do about stuffing a haggis. This is an illustration of the problem of central Government now—their remoteness and yet the power of complete determination which that central Government have.
In the Kilbrandon Report there is an unfortunate dismissal of the federal system. The report states that it must be looked at and discussed, yet it is totally rejected and dismissed so lightly and so quickly. I think that this is wrong. That system of federal government has its merits. Again, this can be clearly seen in relation to the history of Northern Ireland. The most important merit of a federal system—not the only merit by any means—is that each province, state or region would have a degree of sovereignty not afforded under the devolution system. I believe that this would have safeguarded the province of Northern Ireland in a way which could


not be done under the devolved system which obtained in that province.
In 1949 the Ireland Act stated that the Parliament of Northern Ireland could not be abolished without the consent of the Ulster Parliament, and yet we know that that Act was completely ignored and the Government of Northern Ireland was abolished. Under the federal system, with the degree of sovereignty afforded to each region, province or state, that simply could not happen. Because of this great attribute of intrinsic sovereignty the federal system is worth considering and ought not to be dismissed so quickly and readily.
I offer those observations and I thank the House for its attention.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I hope that hon. Members who hope to catch my eye will not delay our proceedings with interventions.

3.28 a.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me in this debate to discuss the developments in policy on devolution as far as they affect the people of Wales. I should like to say something, however, about the way in which this debate on devolution has arisen and to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford).
This is the second time that hon. Members who have wanted to debate this major constitutional and political issue have had to resort to the terms of the Consolidated Fund Bill to do so. Perhaps the most powerful argument for devolution to Scottish and Welsh parliaments is that the Government in this Parliament has not been able to find the time to debate devolution. The Government seemed anxious to get involved in rounds of discussion outside the House, with local government, national organisations and, indeed, political parties. There are queues building up and stretching for miles outside the Welsh Office in Cardiff waiting to consult the Secretary of State for Wales.
If this were in reality the great exercise in participatory democracy which it is made out to be, why does the Government have talks with all forms of bodies outside the House but does not find time

for a full debate on the report of the Royal Commission in this Chamber? The fact that this debate, and its predecessor in March—when I recollect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were also in the Chair—is taking place at all is due to the luck of the draw coupled with the resourcefulness of the Whips of the minority parties.
The Government may say that the appropriate time for debate is after the publication of the White Paper. However, the real relevance of debate is in policy formulation. In other words this is the time for discussion, when an exchange of views, an analysis of options and an assessment of the implications of various models can be pursued.
If there is to be a real debate about devolution, as opposed to an empty public relations exercise conducted through Press releases from the Welsh and Scottish Offices, this debate must take place in the Chamber, certainly if it is to be about the transfer of power from this Chamber to other chambers in Cardiff and Edinburgh and perhaps, at a later date, to the English regions. The Government may alternatively take the view that time should have been found on an Opposition Supply Day. Those occasions are arranged through the usual channels with the Opposition Chief Whip.
The Conservative Opposition and their foremost front organisation in Wales, the CBI, have no policy on devolution short of retaining what I can only describe as a refined version of the status quo, ensuring an assembly with a nominated element which will make certain that the various members of the CBI in Wales still find themselves on some form of Welsh Council and still get their expenses to Cardiff. The Conservative Party has no constructive views at all on devolution. Certainly they have not been produced so far.
Maybe the Conservative Party is waiting until four o'clock in the morning to produce its views on this. This may be the great revelation of this debate. The most radical shift in the political system of Great Britain should not be relegated to discussion at four o'clock in the morning, however bright the Opposition or Government benches may be at this hour. I am certain that this will not be lost on the people of Wales in the forthcoming election—if there is to be a forthcoming election.
It is in the context of the possible timing of a General Election and the electoral pressures on the Government that I see the developing devolution debate. The motivation on the devolution issue has been governed all along by electoral pressures. I am not blaming the Government for this. I believe that it is to their credit. The Labour movement in Wales, or at least my Socialist colleagues in the trade union wing, still have the sensitivity to respond to electoral pressures. This does not seem to be paralleled by the Labour movement in Scotland. I am not here to comment on that. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with that.
It was electoral pressure which brought about the setting-up of the original Royal Commission. It was announced in the Gracious Speech of 1968, a Gracious Speech which had been preceded in July of that year by certain by-elections. Caerphilly was the third in a succession of by-elections in Wales—

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what was the attitude of the leaders of the Nationalist movement in Wales to the establishment of the Crowther Commission?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten the House on that point when he makes his speech. When that Commission was set up it was felt by the leaders of Plaid Cymru at that time that the Commission was a strategy to delay, or a reaction to, Nationalist pressure. This was how it was seen in the Press too.
It was a fact that the Gracious Speech announcing the setting-up of the Royal Commission was preceded from the Government's point of view by certain unfortunate by-elections. Caerphilly was the third in a succession of by-elections in Wales, in one of which Plaid Cymru had taken a seat from the Labour Party and in the other two it came second. A strategy was called for and the then Government opted for a Royal Commission, as this present Labour Government have done so often.
I am not saying that the setting-up of the Royal Commission was entirely due to Plaid Cymru. Credit must also go to

the Scottish Nationalist Party. Credit must also go to that section of the Labour Party, certainly in Wales, which has been responsive over the years to devolutionary demands. This group has, however, tended to need a lot of hard driving from the back, particularly on certain occasions, to activate it and overcome resistance or reluctance to stand by what one hopes are its positive views.
The exercise of a Royal Commission was gone through for four and a half years, but the Commission duly reported in October 1973. However, despite the one General Election success of the SNP in its 1970 General Election and the presence in the House of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the pressure appeared, at least to the Conservative Government, to be off in terms of a massive advance by the national parties in Wales and Scotland.
The reception given to the Commission's report in October 1973 led the Secretary of State for the Environment to appeal to the House not to "give way to total cynicism". Following the 1974 General Election the pressure was turned on again, with the present composition of the House, and the new Labour Government were made instantly more responsive to the need for devolution. This went so far that on 9th April, the Prime Minister, in reply to an Oral Question, said:
I am not making a commitment to any particular date but I hope that we should have it"—
the White Paper on devolution—
before the Summer Recess".—[OFFICAL REPORT 9th April 1974; Vol. 872 c. 161.]
That was presumably when he was still keeping a June election as an option. Now that he is keeping an October election option open, the Leader of the House said today that we can expect the White Paper in the "early autumn". The Secretary of State for Wales today made great play with the fact, as he said, that "To get action on devolution we need the return of a Labour Government". I hope I can share his optimism that if an election takes place in the near future the Labour Party will be returned.
However, there is a further vital element which the Secretary of State for Wales rather ungraciously saw fit to leave out of his equation, namely the proven necessity, going by the experience of the


past six years, for positive electoral pressure from Plaid Cymru to commit the Government irrevocably to action and ensure that they carry out their commitment on devolution. The political lessons of the need for a substantially increased Plaid Cymru presence in the House to represent radical social and devolutionary policies will not be lost on the Welsh electorate if there is a forthcoming General Election.
But there is an impetus towards devolution and an impetus to the whole devolutionary debate which goes much deeper and which the presence of Plaid Cymru Members in the House only reflects. This is the increasing determination of various sections of Welsh opinion to move rapidly towards a substantial degree of legislative devolution. I say in the House what I have said in Wales—in fact, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones)—namely, that I believe that the most important event which has taken place in the political life of Wales this year was the decision of the Wales TUC, representing the force of the working people of Wales, to come out in favour of legislative devolution.
What is being increasingly felt by the Wales TUC and by other radical thinkers in the Labour movement in Wales, and what supporters of a monolithic political and economically unitary United Kingdom are missing out on and failing to appreciate, is that total political and economic unity means the permanent retention of stratified inequalities between the constituent countries of this union. I have asked a series of questions during the latter half of this Parliament to obtain a profile of the relative socioeconomic position of the various parts of Britain. The picture is grim for any political unionist, particularly one who purports to be a Socialist in outlook and has some vision of social justice and the redistribution of resources.
I quote a few of the indicators of relative social and economic deprivation in Wales relative to the average for Great Britain. In each of the indicative statistics I give, Great Britain is taken at 100 per cent.
The Family Expenditure Survey for 1972 shows Wales as having the lowest average household income per person—89 per cent. of the average for Great

Britain. Consequently Wales has an 18 per cent. above average number of households with household income per person less than half the British average or less. The number of supplementary benefit payments per head of the population in Wales is 25 per cent. above the British average.
The male unemployment rate in Wales stands at 130 per cent. of the British average. During the previous Labour Government from 1965–69 that rate climbed to 177 per cent. of the British average. The female activity rate is 20 per cent. below the average for Great Britain. The number in low-paid jobs in the various socio-economic groups of semi-skilled manual workers, unskilled manual workers, farmers without employees and agricultural workers is 30 per cent. above the British average.
To take the basic health statistics per thousand population, the figure for certified incapacity for males, expressed as the rate per man at risk for sickness benefit purposes, stands at a staggering 188 per cent. above the average in Great Britain. That is partly because of the preponderance of heavy industry and partly because of the basic social deprivation suffered in Wales. The proportion of households lacking basic amenities—a bath and hot water on tap—is 200 per cent. of the British average. I have chosen just a few of the socio-economic indicators which point to the relative deprivation of Wales in relation to the average for Britain as a whole.
The opposite pole of these indicators is the level of social and economic performance in South-East England, the region which regularly tops the league when Wales hits the bottom. It is the centre of wealth, it has a hugely unequal share of Britain's resources and it is also the centre of political power.
Yet in the context of a deprived Wales in relation to Britain, in the context of a profile of social deprivation which calls for Government intervention to tackle the basic problems, the discussion document on devolution asks inane questions on whether "divergency of policies" is acceptable between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. The logic and the inequalities of the situation clearly dictate different policies to bring up the relative position of Wales.
The devolution debate is taking place in a social and political context in which Wales is an unequal partner, and in which increasing demands for legislative devolution are being made, led by the Welsh TUC and followed by local authorities and other organisations throughout Wales. It is a positive and deep-seated motivation to tackle at Welsh government level the problems of divergence in social and economic attainment which the British Government have neglected.
The argument for legislative devolution is that Wales needs a structure of powerful government to devise and implement policies to tackle its problems. It needs a government with ability to plan and execute a strategy of economic and social planning on a level which the British Government have not attempted. This must include full legislative powers over a range of domestic policy functions. It must include control over natural resources, including the ability to bring Celtic Sea oil under 100 per cent. public ownership by the Welsh people, to utilise the revenues and profits from the oil, to control the rate of extraction, minimise the environmental impact and combat the social deprivation suffered by the Welsh people, and stimulate job diversification. For this purpose the Welsh Development Agency rather tentatively proposed by the Government should be under Welsh parliamentary control.
The Welsh Parliament must have powers in social policy to enable it to tackle housing deprivation by building a minimum of 25,000 houses per annum for 10 years, particularly in the public sector. It should also be empowered to reorganise the administration of the social security system in Wales, so as to simplify the method of claiming for social security benefit and increase take-up by linking the administration more closely with the local authority social service departments.
The new Welsh parliament must also have broadcasting functions to ensure the allocation of the fourth network to alleviate the linguistic pressure on the broadcasting services. In addition it must take the lead in providing a bilingual form of administration so that hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will be able to speak in Welsh not only in Strasbourg but also in the assembly in which they will represent the Welsh people.
In all these policy areas there is a clear need for full legislative powers to be vested in the new Welsh parliament. This legislative flexibility must depend on granting financial flexibility, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in the debate on the economic situation last week. He called for the introduction of a gross domestic product equalisation payment to ensure a transfer of resources into the Welsh economy from general taxation.
The need for legislative devolution is dictated by the need for greater social justice in these islands. The drive for devolution is a drive to create a new centre of power within the Welsh community which will be able to devise the kind of policies that will make Wales a more equitable country with its resources more evenly distributed in order to bring about a more equitable social stratification than we see at present in Great Britain.
I believe that within the Welsh context a great social experiment is possible. It is an experiment about which the Welsh people have been talking for fifty years ever since Wales became a left-of-centre and socialist country. I believe that the time is now coming for the Welsh people to act on their social experiment. I also believe that in the course of the next five years that social experiment will be begun.

3.46 a.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I regard it as somewhat grotesque that this debate is taking place at this hour of the morning, and even more grotesque that it should be held at this stage of the parliamentary Session. I should have thought the Government, particularly a Labour Government, would have made it possible for us to debate this most important subject far earlier in the Session and at a much more sympathetic hour.
However, let me get down to the subject of the debate. I understand the subject under discussion to be the consultations which are rumoured to have been held on the proposals set down in the Government's consultative document. I do not think it would be wise for us to consider those consultations in their widest possible scale. It would surely be more sensible to think about them in terms of the political parties represented in this House.
Let us begin with the Labour Party. How can the Labour Party hold consultations with itself when the party itself has not decided what its point of view is? We have the ridiculous—indeed grotesque —position whereby the national executive of the Labour Party in England has already made up its mind what the national executive of the Labour Party in Scotland ought already to have said. The interesting convolution of the situation is that the national executive of the Labour Party of Scotland has already decided something quite different. We have come to a position in which the Government, in consultations between themselves and the political movement which gives rise to the Government, faces two diametrically opposed solutions. In the lifetime of this Government we are faced not with sensible decision-making but with a ridiculous kind of shilly-shallying.
Scotland also faces other problems than devolution. One of the most important questions facing Scotland today is what is to happen to its oil. However, I do not want the only Member of the Scottish Labour Party who is now present—the Minister of State, Scottish Office—to feel that I am chastising him unduly.
I turn now to the more interesting and heinous case of the Scottish Conservative Party. Here we shall all enjoy ourselves. Here we have a much more desperate situation, where people from the South are affecting people in the North. It has been the history of the Conservative Party in recent years that those in the South have been more progressive than those in the North on the subject of devolution. Time after time we have had the ridiculous spectacle of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) telling his minions in the North what they should do. Now, of course, the Conservative Party has begun to climb down from what the right hon. Gentleman previously insisted was the case. We have the position today that the Conservative Party, which claimed to be the outright spokesman for Scotland suggests that we in Scotland should be satisfied with an assembly which is not directly elected—in other words, an assembly which is the antithesis of democracy. The constitutionalists may say that that is a matter of detail. But the charge which I lay at the Conservative Party's door is much more serious than that.
The Conservative Party in Scotland has gone out with the evil intention to split the nation of Scotland. It has done what no other party—Labour, Liberal, Scottish National or anyone else—has tried to do. The Conservative Party has spread the evil doctrine that somehow Scotland must be split into two nations, one of which demands varying degrees of devolution and the other of which must resist any such move. It is sad that men whom I used to consider honourable have set out to do this. It is even more sad because they do it for one reason. They realise what many other people in Scotland have yet to realise: that there is one body of people in the nation of Scotland who have a vested interest in keeping matters as they are. That body of people are the Conservative politicians.
As soon as we have a genuine degree of devolution in Scotland we shall find that the ambitions of those men and the platform on which they aspire to those ambitions will have been pulled from beneath their feet. That is why they are prepared to go to Scotland to do in Scotland what their predecessors were prepared to do in Ireland 100 years ago. Their predecessors went to Ireland not simply to utilise the conditions which they found but to create the divisions and then to exploit them.
I have never been a political animal in the real sense, but I despise those Conservatives in Scotland who are prepared to play this game today. At the same time I praise all those in Scotland who are taking part in meaningful debate. I regret that the Labour Party so far has chosen to pay such a faint-hearted rôle in these proceedings.
The other cases that I want to mention are those of the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party. I do not agree with the Liberal Party, otherwise I would be a Liberal. None the less, I think that the Liberal Party has made a constructive contribution to the debate that is going on in Scotland at this time. Indeed, the submission that the Liberal Party made to the consultative document is fairly close to that made by my Party.
However, the case with which I want to deal seriously is that which the Scottish National Party has placed before the people of Scotland and, indeed, of the United Kingdom. It is probably true—this is a sad reflection on the way that


the average political mind on the Front Benches of both major parties thinks—that neither of the major parties expected the Scottish National Party to put in any kind of submission to the consultative document. I believe that it shocked them rigid when they found that we had not only responded to their invitation but that our response was as reasoned and moderate as it was found to be.
The consultative document, Scheme A, is close to the majority report of the Kilbrandon Commission. I suggest that the additions that we proposed are the product of genuine statesmanship. We have said that we want more than the Kilbrandon scheme offered. We have said in particular that we want control over the oil revenues as well as the United Kingdom Ministries which operate in Scotland outwith the control of the Secretary of State. The basic point, however, is that we have been, are and will go on being prepared to accept that any kind of devolution in Scotland will be achieved stage by stage.
Indeed, three months ago in this House I said that we were prepared to go to the people of Scotland and to our English friends in this place and say "Fair enough, it is not possible or practicable for you to give us all that we want in one fell swoop. Therefore, we will be prepared to argue the point and to accept one stage. We will then put that stage to the people of Scotland and ask them what more powers they want. We will then gradually extend them until we arrive at a situation where everyone agrees that the maximum desirable stage of devolution, self-government, independence, whatever word might be used, has been achieved".
To our detractors in other parties who make capital out of this or that proposal, I say that we will do this with the support not only of those who have always supported the SNP—dare I say it, the Scots—but of those who have chosen to live in Scotland and to support the policies of the Scottish National Party.
I have always sincerely believed in the sanity of a reasoned, sane and moderate policy. I have always believed that Scotland, virtually alone, apart from Wales and other places close by, of all countries obviously moving towards self-government, has a national movement of

which the nation may be justly proud. There has never been any serious suggestion that my party would move towards this position in anything other than a totally constitutional way. There will never be any questions of that as long as I am a member of this party, and I bet that I shall outlive any of my contemporaries here.
I ask the House, in considering this issue, to remember that that is the case and to remember, moreover, that the big parties, the Labour Party to a lesser extent and the Conservative Party in a gross and obscene fashion, have been misguided enough to see our case in an entirely different way.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: As the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) have reminded us, yet again the Opposition and the minority parties in this Parliament are claiming credit for many things.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In this Parliament all parties are minority parties.

Mr. Jones: That is true, but some parties are smaller than others, and the electorate will soon remedy that when the issue is brought before it.
I will not venture into Northern Ireland politics beyond saying that the hon. Member for Belfast, South, who suggested a federal system, did not apply himself to that substantive and important part of the Kilbrandon Report which deals with the financial implications of such a policy. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be able to explain to his constituents where the money would come from under a federal system. He will no doubt have to tell them that they could rely on no subventions from Westminster and that local resources would have to be found to finance the devolved services he has in mind.
The speech of the hon. Member for Merioneth, for whom I have a great deal of respect and regard and who is an amiable Member, easy to get on with, was perplexing. This was not the hon. Gentleman I have known over the past few months. He resorted to a form of speech one expects from the leader of


his party. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was far more mature and politically educated than to follow that line of argument. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in that vein I shall have to reply accordingly.
We are informed that the Crowther Commission was set up because the minority parties in Wales and Scotland exerted the necessary pressure and that the commission was established because the Welsh nationalists won a seat in 1966 and afterwards came very close to winning another two seats in solid Labour areas in South Wales. In 1970 the Welsh nationalists lost the seat which, they claim, had led to the establishment of the commission. Are we to suppose, if we follow their argument logically, that in 1970 there was not a continuing demand for greater devolution in Wales.
I know that the hon. Member for Merioneth believes in his cause. I do not impugn his motives. However, if he wants to propagate his cause, I advise him that devolution in Wales should not be measured by percentage points, or by the fact that one party has two or three seats or that another party has lost a seat in a General Election or at a by-election.
Devolution is a greater and far more important issue than whether the party of the hon. Member for Merioneth, or my party, or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party make any constitutional or electoral advances. It is not a matter of opinion polls, or percentage points, or who wins or loses particular seats. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Merioneth to ask what was the official view of his party when the Crowther Commission was established. He was reticent in his answer. I was not surprised. Perhaps I can tell him the view of the leader of his party. Every party has a leader. We may disagree with our party leader from time to time, but at the end of the day we have to conform to certain beliefs and accept the leadership. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party told the people of the Principality, at the time that the Crowther Commission was established:
no one seems to be convinced that although the Government have planned to establish this Commission. they will take any action as a result of any report. It is … a gimmick to 'take the steam' out of Welsh and Scottish nationalism….

The leader of the Welsh Nationalists went on …
Governments normally find people to serve on these Commissions who share their prejudices and premises. If there are to be Welshmen on this Commission, I could almost name the likely nominees now—and they could be relied on to co-operate cordially with the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th November 1968.; Vol. 772. c. 524–5.]
What Kilbrandon has proposed is far more than what the Labour Party in Wales or in Scotland believes in, yet the leader of one nationalist party was then telling the House that there would be collusion, and that the members of the Commission would be so selected so as to ensure that a decision was arrived at to suit the view of the Government party—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman was misquoting what the leader of my party said, when he spoke in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 4th November 1968. He said:
It is thought to be a gimmick".
He also said:
no one seems to be convinced …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th November 1968; Vol. 772 c. 524.]
He was referring to general reaction which was seen in the national Press to the announcement of the setting up of the Commission.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones) has referred to remarks made on 4th November 1968 by the then Member for Carmarthen about membership of the commission. It is clear that those remarks had such an effect on the Government of the day that they ensured that the membership of the commission was balanced, so as to represent the different view points of the various parties. Some claims made by various parties regarding the setting up of the commission have been idle speculation. I have paid generous tribute to the devolution lobby in the Labour Party in Wales. I only wish it was stronger.

Mr. Jones: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has turned Queen's Counsel for the leader of his party. He is under an obligation to do that. One does not want to enter into an argument whether the views expressed by the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party were, in fact, the views of the Western Mail, the South Wales Echo, or the Liverpool Daily Post. The then Member for Carmarthen said those words in 1968 and they are on the


record for people to analyse and pass judgment upon. The hon. Member naturally has to save his leader, or the repercussions from his national executive in a few weeks would be indescribable.
It is unkind of hon. Members to expect results after five months of a Labour Government, when the report was published months before the election. I cannot recall similar agitation in the autumn of 1973. It is fashionable for the nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales to make a Labour Government the target for protest.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Jones: The leader of the Scottish National Party can make his own speech.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am anxious not to give any impression of trying to curtail the debate, but there are another 40 debates to come, in which other hon. Members are just as interested.

Mr. Thomas: How does the hon. Gentleman construe my party's regular support for the Government on vital issues as an attack?

Mr. Jones: The Labour Party is grateful for the hon. Member's support and that of his hon. Friend. My constituents will however have noted that while they have helped us during difficult times, the leader of their party has expressed different views, attacking the Labour Party and pleading for the chance to oust Labour in Carmarthen.
I am sure that the whole of Scotland and Wales expect this Government to produce a White Paper on Kilbrandon in the near future. We expect publication of the White Paper certainly before the autumn if there is to be a certain event then. We expect the Government to outline in detail its proposals on devolution and to embody these in a White Paper in September or early October. My party will go into that election with a clear commitment for the establishment of an elected assembly with significant executive and administrative authority and functions in Wales even empowered to partake in the legislative process. I will not argue whether that would be the sort of policy the nationalists could accept or which

would be acceptable to the Principality generally. Labour has a clear policy for Wales and we are not ashamed of it. We are not afraid to put it before the people.
In 1964 the Welsh Office was established, with two or three functions, operating on a budget of £150 million. By 1970 the budget had reached £450 million to £500 million and now it is £600 million. Its functions involve roads, housing, health and local government. Various functions have been devolved to the Welsh Office since 1964, and clearly that is how the Welsh elected assembly would have to develop. That is a compromise, but we are all compromising. When the nationalist party gave evidence to the Crowther Commission in Cardiff it demanded a seat in the United Nations for the independent Welsh State. That was rejected in the report. The federal system put forward by the Liberals was also turned down. Thus we are all compromising.
Politicians can argue about legislative or executive power, but the fact remains that the report makes a strong case for an executive assembly enabled to choose priorities within certain devolved services. If water and the reorganisation of the health service together with other functions of nominated bodies were to be devolved to an elected Welsh Assembly, that would mark significant progress for Welsh devolution and determination, encompassing a budget of £300 million. Constitutional advancement is not an argument about the number of MPs a party has but about whether devolution will result in good government, can be argued and defended as a result, and is democratically justifiable. We have reached a clear consensus view in Wales. If we allow the situation so to deteriorate that the advance made is fritted away then we shall never be forgiven by the people of Wales.
The largest minority party in the Opposition, the Conservatives, argued at its recent conference in Llandrindod, that it did not believe in any form of elected body for Wales. The people of Wales will clearly understand therefore that it is no use increasing minority representation in the House and as a result securing a Conservative Government, because that will not result in the necessary constitutional advance for the Principality.
The majority of the people of Wales expect, demand and support an elected assembly with substantial powers. I am sure that they will also understand that there is only one course of action they can take whenever the country is called to decide on such matters. Only a majority Labour Government can possibly secure the creation of the elected assembly.

4.21 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The one consistent theme of the speeches, at least from the Opposition benches, is that it is a shame that we did not have such a debate a long time ago, and that it was so late at night. Although there might well have been a case for such a discussion earlier, the contributions so far make me wonder whether a long debate at another time would have served a useful purpose.
The Kilbrandon Report was about how we could achieve better, more efficient, more responsive government in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, We had from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones) what was virtually a party political broadcast, in which he talked about the relevance of the Welsh Labour Party and Plaid Cymru. In an interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) said that devolution in Northern Ireland would mean getting away from power sharing. For the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) one of the red terrors of Plaid Cymru, devolution meant what appeared to be a Welsh workers' apartheid. We heard an astonishing, scandalous, ridiculous speech from the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), for whom devolution was nothing to do with good government but had to do only with how we could get on the slippery slope towards the separation for which the Scottish Nationalists stand.
It has been a terrible debate. If we are to have a debate about the report we must have some speeches about how we can bring about more efficient government for the people of the countries concerned, not how we can try to pursue narrow, sectional interests of strange parties that arise in different places to exploit greed and pure folly.
If they say that they want an assembly—whether to establish a workers' republic, to get us on a slippery slope to independence, or for any other purpose—all the parties must ask whether there is a rôle for an assembly, and how it would bring about more effective and efficient government. There are strong arguments on both sides. When we consider the present position of Scotland, can we say that there is room for a Scottish Assembly with the present governmental situation? We have on the one hand new regional councils, one of which covers about half the population of Scotland. The councils have significant powers. That is a fact of life in Scotland today whether it is a good or a bad thing.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his own Government set up the Strathclyde Region? Does he further agree that it was a piece of nonsense and that every person living in the region outside the Glasgow area would wish to be well clear of it?

Mr. Taylor: I know that many people have expressed that view and, like all issues, there are arguments for and against. However, I am getting a little sick and tired of this constant carping from the SNP. It is against everything in general and for nothing in particular. We are seeing massive oil development, and the hon. Member for Argyll made a fleeting reference to it. The SNP is saying that Scotland should benefit from the oil and that we must ensure that Scotland benefits. But for every proposition that I have come across for the setting up of sites for oil platforms, I have found the local SNP representatives to be the first to lead the objections. It seems that the SNP is for such matters in general—

Mr. Donald Stewart: Nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) says "Nonsense". Where does he think that we should build oil platforms in Scotland? Let him tell the House and let us have it on record. Where does the hon. Gentleman think that they should be built?

Mr. Stewart: A Norwegian company is building at Stornoway and will employ 1,000 men. It has the full backing of the local SNP.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear that. We now know that there is one place in Scotland where the SNP is in favour of building oil platforms. Let us hope that that will remain the position. It is a ludicrous situation when general propositions are put forward that Scotland must benefit and when the SNP says, "Not here. We do not want it here." In my part of Scotland we are prepared to consider any proposition that is put forward. I can assure the SNP that in Cathcart we are benefiting from North Sea oil through the interests of the Weir Engineering Group, which is doing extremely well. However, like many Scottish firms I am afraid that it is getting worried about some of the ugly and rather strange statements that are being expressed by the SNP and by Socialists.
Let us get to the real issue—I am tired of being diverted by SNP Members—which is government of Scotland, government of Wales and government of Ulster. If we have an assembly in Scotland we must take into account that we have large regions established with considerable power. Another matter that we cannot avoid and which is a fact of life, whether we like it or not, is the Common Market. It has considerable power over many aspects of government in Scotland. That was not the situation two or three years ago. The Common Market Commission has the power to determine regional policies throughout the EEC. It has considerable power—the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) knows this well as he goes to that strange European body called the European Assembly—and it has taken some of the sovereignty which would formerly have been available for an independent country, whether Britain or Scotland.
If we have an assembly it must have the power to raise money. If that were not so it would in some respects be less effective than a regional council which has the power to levy its own rates. That is one side of the argument, but there is another, and that is basically the reason for having an assembly.
It can be argued with some merit that Scottish legislation is not fully considered by the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Standing Committee. That may be because Scottish Members are involved with United Kingdom business or because the size of the Committee makes it

impossible for a substantial number of Scottish Members to take part. We were very conscious of this matter when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was considered in Committee. There were many areas of Scotland which did not have representation in that Committee. Yet it was a crucial issue for Scotland.
Perhaps more of a worry is that, under our present arrangements for considering Scottish legislation, there does not appear to be any machinery whereby new ideas, particularly from the back benches, could emerge.
Again, because we are in the unique position of having Members located by and large in London and our Ministries are by and large in Edinburgh, those Ministries tend to be very powerful and are not under the same democratic and daily control exercised in this House over other Ministries. Inevitably, the tendency has been towards strong Ministries and weak Ministers—and here I am not thinking in any respect of either Conservative or Labour Governments.
It has been argued, rightly, that even without power to raise its own money a Scottish Assembly could have considerable power if it had the right to spend a block grant which would take account of Scotland's special needs. But we could well have limited power to raise cash, perhaps by vehicle licensing or the splendid oil development fund suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and now apparently accepted by the Government. This system could well be consistent with the Union.
The argument appears to be in favour, on balance, of having a Scottish Assembly which would have greater control of the Scottish Office Department than is exercised at present and which would have considerable influence in making Scottish law. But there would have to be a dividing line.
I see no reason why a Scottish Assembly should not be able to decide, for example, that the school-leaving age should be different in Scotland or even that Scotland should have capital punishment. But as long as we had the Union it would be difficult to have complete freedom and flexibility.
A Scottish Assembly could also perform useful tasks in the cross-examination of Ministers, not only Scottish but United


Kingdom, whose work affected Scotland. It could also do something that is not done effectively now—scrutinise and question the rôle of the Scottish nationalised industries.
A crucial question for us is whether we should have elected members of a Scottish Assembly or nominated members, or whether we should go for a nominated assembly with the option of changing to an elected one later on. The Conservative Party has, on balance, decided that our policy will be to go for a non-elected assembly in the short-term but to leave the options open for an elected assembly if it appears that this would be in the best interests of Scotland and its good government.
What are the arguments for a non-elected assembly? First, when we talk of non-elected members we are not saying, as has been suggested by the "Red terror" from Wales, that we would take people from the CBI and tell them to govern Scotland. The suggestion is that people from the already-elected regional and district councils would have a proper rôle to play.
Secondly, unless considerable power was readily available to a Scottish Assembly, directly elected members would be looking for more power than was possible from the spread of sovereignty from our various institutions.
The third point of which we have to be reminded is that some non-elected bodies, such as the Counties of Cities Association and the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, have played a considerable part in helping to influence Government policy and to put across the views of different parts of the country. On the other hand, there are arguments for the elected assembly—first, that democracy by remote control is not a good thing and that people should be directly answerable for the work they are doing; second, that there is no guarantee with a non-elected assembly that all areas would be represented.
The danger with a nominated assembly might be that regions such as Strathclyde could send all city men, or we might find one party being pushed by the representatives of particular regions. Therefore, it is very important, if we are having a non-elected assembly, that clear rules should be laid down that each area should

be entitled to specific representation, and the balance of parties or representatives with independants should be fairly representative.
There is also the argument that a non-elected assembly would not have the same authority as one directly elected. Bearing in mind that I feel that there is a rôle for an assembly, I believe that at this stage the evidence has not been submitted that there would be a full rôle, a rôle which would be meaningful. If we had direct election, there certainly could be circumstances, if we tried the Conservative suggestion of an assembly for a period of, say, five years, in which we could reconsider the whole matter.
The most crucial thing for us to do, however, is to look at this matter from the point of view of what will be good for the people of our country and of what will be good for the people of Wales or of Scotland. There is a great danger that in the enthusiasm for devolution and for setting up elected assemblies we may be making ourselves grossly over-governed. We would have a situation in which the people of Scotland would have to some degree rule from Brussels, Westminster, Edinburgh, the regional council and the district council, and to some degree they would be influenced by the work of a community council.
When we have the movement at one end towards the EEC, of which I personally was not in favour, and when we have had, on the other hand, the movement towards the setting up of regional and district councils, it would be unrealistic to blunder without thinking of the consequences for a straight directly elected assembly immediately unless we are absolutely convinced that it will work towards better and more efficient government and if we convince ourselves that it will not lead to the split-up of the United Kingdom.
This is the one point on which I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South. I believe passionately in retaining the United Kingdom. Britain is a force for good in the world. I look upon myself very much as a British nationalist. There are two forces which could break up the United Kingdom. First we have the class conflict which is fomented by Socialists in both local and national government.


The class conflict could break up our great nation. The second force is parochial nationalism, advanced for different reasons by the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and others. Both these forces, which I regard as extremist forces, could destroy Great Britain and split it up.
While I hope that we shall all work together for the better government of Scotland and to bring more efficient government to all our people, I hope that at least in the House of Commons those men of good will who believe in our own nation will work together to preserve the unity of Great Britain, irrespective of politics.

4.40 a.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is twenty minutes to five o'clock in the morning. To debate this issue with any proper attention at this hour is nonsense. I echo everything said by all previous speakers on this subject. It is highly unsatisfactory that the Government, who are presumably serious in their intentions to consult, should not have initiated any debate but left it to what is virtually a raffle to produce a debate at this hour with about 19 Members present, only one of them a member of the Scottish Labour Party.
I question whether the basis on which we are debating is valid. We are debating on the basis of the document entitled "Devolution within the United Kingdom. Some Alternatives for Discussion." This is the Government's document arising out of Kilbrandon. Despite what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones) has said—and he has now fled into the night, or into the dawn—I think I am uniquely entitled to point out that the Crowther Commission was established because of the upsurge of nationalism in Wales and Scotland.
I am entitled to say this because I, as a Liberal, am a member of a party which has consistently advocated devolution for a long time, alas, with the moderation which certain elements in the Labour Party now regard as being divisive, but which perhaps in its immediate impact was less forcible than the effect of certain by-elections in Wales and Scotland when the Nationalists were successful. That must be conceded because it is a fact. I am not a believer in hiding facts.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen was quite wrong to pretend that somehow or other this commission was set up because the Labour Party was basically interested in devolution. That is completely untrue. I will pursue later some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). He is "the routin' rovin' robin" of Scottish politics, and is able to summon up immense quantities of vitriol even at this late hour. I rather admire him for it. Some of his arguments were less than logical.
Is it a fair basis for constitutional change in this country to seek to rely upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission? At the beginning the White Paper said:
Both separatism and federalism have been rejected".
Therefore, "No discussion of those any more, thank you very much." My party has consistently supported federalism. This was rejected in the Kilbrandon Report on the basis of various papers produced by an academic gentleman who rejoices in the name of Professor Vile. In my view his arguments are unsound. That is my contention, my opinion. I do not think that these are things that can be proved or disproved. They are matters of opinion.
The view that the Scottish Nationalists take, that they want sovereign status, is a matter of opinion. In short, what we are dealing with are not matters of constitutional or administrative moment but are matters of spirit. Various hon. Members have said that the people of Wales think this, the people of Scotland think that. There is no means of measuring either of these rather esoteric concepts effectively. There are no set views. Views on these things vary from time to time.
Let me take the four basic alternatives which are argued politically in Scotland and Wales, though they become not as clear-cut in the regions of England. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is much lambasted by the Scottish National Party as being stiff-necked, stubborn and many other things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That is not something which I am capable of divining. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is a very honest Scotsman who takes the view as a Scotsman—and


no one, in my view, can criticise the Scottishness of the right hon. Gentleman—that Scotland should be part of the United Kingdom; he favours a unitary system in the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly honest, straightforward view. The right hon. Gentleman, to do him credit, does not sway to winds which blow, as a number of members of his party appear to be anxious to do. I am not saying whether he is right or wrong, but, speaking as a party politician, I admire the right hon. Gentleman for the consistency of his view. He may be consistently wrong, but he is consistent and reliable.
Secondly, there is the point of view of the Conservative Party, which was expressed, to some degree, by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I understand that the Conservative policy is the baby of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is at present adopting on the Opposition Front Bench the posture of a philosopher. He succeeded in persuading his party—which was subject to a similar split to that which exists in the Scottish Labour Party—to the compromise of an indirectly elected assembly. This is, in my opinion as a Liberal, a canonised county council, and not something which I, as a Scotsman, find acceptable.
The Conservative Party makes the basic mistake of confusing matters of administration and matters of spirit. We must give to the nationalists the fact that we are talking about this matter only because the Scotsmen feel Scottish and the Welshmen feel Welsh and, therefore, they want some kind of Government to represent that feeling, whatever that Government may be. I am against indirect election and, as a former member of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland under Lord Wheatley, may I say that one basic principle that we accepted unanimously was that indirect election was not satisfactory.
Thirdly, there is the question of the attitude of the Scottish National Party, which seeks sovereign status. I am still unclear about whether the Welsh National Party spokesman seeks sovereign status—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: A workers' republic.

Mr. Johnston: That is grossly unfair to the Welsh National Party spokesman.

He did not mention a workers' republic at any stage. He indicated that he was inclined to support Labour Party views, but that is a different matter. He made no reference to sovereign status for Wales, which I always understood to be the posture of the Welsh National Party. On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has never made a secret of the fact that it believes that that is what Scotland should have. Nor, may I say for the benefit of English Members on the Government Front Bench, is this anything to do with oil.
I disagree with the Scottish National Party about the desirability of Scotland establishing itself as a sovereign state. Although the SNP has been talking more about oil than anything else for the past one-and-a-half years, the fact that Scotland has "come up on the pools" has nothing to do with the SNP's belief that Scotland should be self-governing. That is a side argument, not a central one.
I recognise that it was the nationalist by-election successes which resulted in the establishment of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. In November 1966 I introduced a Bill for the establishment of a Scottish parliament for Scottish affairs. I still believe that to be the right policy. Scheme A to some extent goes towards this but does not meet it. The Government should be urging a degree of change which will be acceptable broadly within Scotland and Wales—and within England, although the immediate national pressures in England are not the same. That means legislation based on Scheme A.
The White Paper contains no reference to a referendum. I do not regard referenda as a good way of reaching a considered decision. Nevertheless, the Labour Government are seriously contemplating a referendum to establish whether the United Kingdom should remain within the European community. If they take that view on that issue, logically there is no reason why they should refuse a referendum for the equally important constitutional issue of the future of the nations of Scotland and Wales.
The hon. Member for Cathcart in his rumbustious fashion said that the European Commission would have control over regional policy. No regional policy has been established. If it is established, it will be according to guidelines laid down


by the Council of Ministers in which the United Kingdom plays an equal part and would if necessary be able to veto any guideline or arrangement which it found unsatisfactory.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must know what I meant. Under Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome, which has been applied in three separate cases, regional policy proposals have to be submitted and can be rejected by the commission. He must be aware that I was referring to that article and to the regional policies of individual countries, and not to the Regional Fund which is a separate matter.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is referring to competition policy—

Mr. Taylor: No. I am referring to Article 92.

Mr. Johnston: I do not think there is any point in arguing further. My initial point remains valid. It is not the commission that establishes anything. All things within the Community are established by the Council of Ministers, in which we participate.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to the consultative document. Scheme A was recommended by eight of the 13 members of the commission. I do not regard that as a sacrosanct statement, but it is the basis on which we are proceeding. They not only recommend that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland and Wales, but that these should first be elected for a fixed term and should be elected by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen spoke of democracy. I would remind the House that the Labour Government have made no move at all to set up a Speaker's Conference on electoral reform, and indeed the Conservative Opposition also resisted any proposal for such reform.
This question does not involve only the Liberal Party wanting fairer representation—though it is a stark and brutal reality that in the last election the Liberals received 4 million more votes and won only three more seats. That is an absolute obscenity in democratic terms. That is equally true of the nationalist parties. Their representation within Scotland and Wales is less than they are entitled to,

particularly in Scotland. It has a great deal to do with fair, effective and responsive representation which is presumably what we are talking about, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart emphasised. It is not only a matter of form but of creating a system of government which people feel to be responsive and to reflect their point of view. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart looks puzzled. It is possible that the imputation that he is seeking a democratic solution is offensive to him.

Mr. Taylor: Ridiculous. You are just a trouble maker.

Mr. Johnston: I turn to paragraph 54 of the consultative document, and in my view Scheme A which offers little devolutionary power in the trade, industry and employment fields is unsatisfactory. We would recommend that power should exist in those areas.
The question of variation was raised in paragraph 54(b), and surely it follows that if we are prepared to set up legislative assemblies in different parts of the United Kingdom, we must be prepared to accept the possibility that they may do different things and establish different norms in various areas of policy. There is no point in allowing people to decide matters for themselves if they always have to correspond to common standards. Nor is that necessarily in conflict with the concept of the European Community, which is far more willing to allow a diversity of standards than many of its critics are prepared to admit.
Paragraph 56(b) asks whether the Scottish and Welsh Governments could theoretically
…re-cast completely the structure and powers of local government … they would be able to abolish private medical practice".
The answer is that they might do this if they chose. The choice should be available to them, whatever they might decide to do.
I accept subparagraph (e), which points out that the problem of Scottish and Welsh Members contributing to debates in England if Scheme A were introduced in matters of health, education and local government is difficult. I accept the view that Scottish and Welsh Members ought to be excluded from discussing these matters if they had control over them within their own countries.
I also accept what the Scottish Labour Party has consistently refused to accept, namely, that Scheme A logically means a reduction in the number of Members from Scotland and Wales attending the Westminster Parliament. It is not unfair to say that, in the same way as it is equally fair to say to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland is entitled to more Members and that that is proper in the circumstances. However, it might be pointed out that the justification for reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh Members is that they would have their own legislatures. The same would apply to Northern Ireland, and perhaps the force of the point is mitigated by that since the argument runs that, if one is able to control one's own internal affairs, the total numbers necessary for other matters might be reduced.
Equally, I am prepared to see the Secretaries of State disappear. With a Prime Minister in a Scottish Parliament, his capacity to negotiate will be quite as effective as the presence of a Secretary of State within the Cabinet.
The trouble with the Ulster situation is that, because of the conflict in Ulster, it has been overlooked completely that as an exercise in government it was quite successful. Before the outburst of the troubles, I can recall in the early 1960s making comparisons between what the Stormont Parliament was able to achieve in trade and industry terms and what the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to achieve. Stormont was able to achieve more because of its freedom of operation. The fact that there was no one from Stormont in the Cabinet was no drawback, because the Stormont Prime Minister was able to exercise greater influence.
A great many of the matters queried in the White Paper can be answered by pointing to what has happened in Ulster. I do not say that the Ulster arrangement is adequate. But it would be a mistake to overlook the fact that the system of devolved government which was applied to Northern Ireland—as a system per se, separating it from the religious and nationalistic problems which emerged—in many ways was quite effective. The way that it operated vis-à-vis the central Parliament at Westminster answers many of the questions within the document that has been produced as a result of Crowther.
I am sorry for having delayed the House for so long at this late or early hour. As a Liberal I want to see a better system of representation evolved whereby the individual can of himself and through his accepted community exert an effective voice.
To my mind that means proportional representation of some kind. I repeat this very firmly as a canon of faith. I find it incredible and incomprehensible that Members of the Labour Party, which regards itself as progressive and democratic, should refuse to introduce some reform of that kind. I hope that they will change their attitude in this regard. I would say the same to the Conservative Party which, let us face it, has approximately 500,000 more votes than the Labour Party and yet sits in Opposition. The realities of the split between people of different opinions in this country is not just that we are all minorities but that there are no majorities of any kind. The electoral system has totally clouded this issue since the war.
People who wish to achieve control on a national basis—I am talking principally of Scotland and Wales—should be allowed to do so. Speaking as someone who favours a federal system, I would accept and support a form of government considerably less than that as a first step, partly because I accept that great constitutional change should presumably be taken slowly.
That means co-operating on a European scale, though there are different views about that. I certainly believe that the greater the concentration of power, equally the greater the need for devolution within it, and the one complements the other. If one is, on the one hand, reaching for economic, monetary and political union, one should, on the other hand, be reaching for ways whereby the nations and regions of Europe can express themselves effectively within the whole organism and can equally well have control over their own affairs in a realistic way.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I think that representatives of every party in this House have now had an opportunity to express their views at length. I hope that, out of fairness to others who are waiting up all


night in the hope of getting their debates, hon. Members could at least be very brief in the remaining speeches.

5.8 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: My speech will be brief in any case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) made a valuable contribution to the debate. His facts were facts and his judgments, although I did not agree with all of them, were fair and rational.
I agree that it is disgraceful that a debate on this subject should be taking place at this time in the morning and at this time in this Parliament. It reflects badly on the Government in that they did not allow time in this Parliament to debate this important matter and equally on the main Opposition party because they did not put it down for a Supply Day or even for discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to the demands of Northern Ireland Members to have their numbers here increased. I believe that that request is justified. But I would caution the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that that will make any great difference to the effectiveness of their views.
Scotland has 71 Members in this place. The Liberals were in favour of entry into the Common Market, but a majority of Scottish Members voted against going in. However, if did not make the slightest difference. Therefore, although I believe the hon. Gentleman's claim is justified, the net effect might be smaller than he thinks.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made a rather curious speech, although it was a clever one. It was like the Christmas tree at the children's party—there was a toy for everybody. He could produce one side of HANSARD and say, "Here are my arguments against an assembly" and another side of HANSARD and say, "Here are my arguments in favour of an assembly."
I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with the statistics or otherwise in favour of self-government, even to the degree we have it recommended in the Kilbrandon Report. I will talk about its implementation. As the

hon. Member for Inverness pointed out, the Secretary of State for Scotland has made great play at different times of the fact that the Kilbrandon Commission was set up by the Labour Government. That is factually correct. It is also undeniable that it arose because of the winning of by-elections in Wales and Scotland by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. It was clear in the late 1960s that this trend was taking place in Wales and in Scotland.
The then Government employed the time-honoured device of stalling and appointing a Royal Commission in the hope that it would report three, four or five years hence, by which time, they hoped, the problem would have gone away. The problem is now bigger and more urgent than ever. The Government are now required to stand and deliver.
It is clear that the Labour Party in Scotland is deeply divided on the issue, A few members of the Labour Party—some from sincere motives; some, I regret to say, from opportunism—are pressing for some action. There is a core of hard liners opposed to any degree of devolution.
In this Parliament the promised time scale of firm proposals has been deserted. All we can now hope for is a White Paper during the Recess. If a General Election materialises during the Recess, the Kilbrandon Report will have the relevance of an announcement that Mafeking has been relieved.
The Conservative Party did not give evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission. That shows how much interest the Conservatives had in the suggestion that a measure of devolution should come back to Scotland. They set up a rival investigation at that time. We can throw serious doubt on their commitment to any sort of devolution. They nearly all claim to be devolutionists now, but none of them was known to me to be devolutionist three years ago.
The situation now demands an end to any further procrastination. The Leader of the Conservative Opposition made a grandoise announcement at Perth in 1970 just before the General Election—the declaration of Perth, as it became known. He moved not a finger during the term of his Government from 1970 to 1974 to


redeem that promise. He made a similar promise in Ayr just before the election earlier this year. How does he expect the Scottish people to place any credence in promises that are betrayed in this way?
Now the Conservatives have come up with a toothless assembly. The hon. Member for Inverness referred to it as the child of the official spokesman for the Conservative Party. If it is his child, it is one abortion that I would be very pleased to support.
Self-determination for small nations used always to be a plank in the platform of socialist parties. They regarded it as something honourable and something which small countries were entitled to in justice. It is a great pity that they have departed from that philosophy.
A new situation has now arisen in Scotland and Wales. The Government must delineate their plans. They must be plans for an elected assembly with financial powers. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones) said that the Government have been in power only since February. That is correct, but the promise was made that firm proposals would come forward in this Parliament. Now the Parliament is ending and we still do not know what they are. The lesson will be drawn in Wales and in Scotland.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had not intended to make any great contribution to the debate, but I feel I must echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). The debate on this particular subject could be one of the most important debates that has ever taken place in this House, and the whole future of Scottish and Welsh democracy could depend on it. However, a debate at this hour of the morning does not reflect the true opinions of the majority of Members. The question of democratic self-government throughout these islands is of such a serious nature that more time should have been given by the Government to debate it.
I do not wish to go into the defects of devolution, even though I have known them and have lived with them; nor do I wish to enter into a debate on Northern Ireland, particularly as I understand that the House will be debating Northern Ireland after consideration of the Con-

solidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The proposals for devolution put forward in Kilbrandon are known to most hon. Members as Schemes A, B, C and D, but Northern Ireland Members have lived with devolution since 1930. Therefore, we know its defects and we know whether it is good for a community in general. We also know that for some people it can prove to be an absolute disaster.
Before the Government attempt to present their thoughts on the matter in the form of a White Paper, it would behold every hon. Member to look closely at what has happened to the experiment of devolution in Northern Ireland. I recognise at the outset that neither Scotland nor Wales—and certainly no regions in England—would have the same sectarian divide which has existed in Northern Ireland since the creation of the Province. The devolution in Northern Ireland and the system of Government we had there approximated as I understand it to Scheme A, but I believe that that scheme would not be a very good thing for either Scotland or Wales.
We are told that under the proposals it would be necessary to have a Cabinet system similar to that which we have at Westminster and that the leader of the largest party would form a government for Scotland or Wales, as the case may be. However, if a system of devolution were given to Scotland or Wales it would no longer be possible to have nationalist parties in those countries. People in those parties would have to split up into Conservative or Socialist groups in those areas. [Interruption.]It is a strong possibility that that would happen—otherwise there might be a one-party ascendancy in those areas, if there is a one-party philosophy.
One readily accepts that at present there are Scottish and Welsh nationalists, but if devolution is granted to Scotland and Wales, there would have to be a political divide, with people going to the Right or the Left in those areas.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the circumstances he has described the other political parties in Scotland—the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour—would remain and would be able to function, and that therefore whatever happened to the nationalist parties there


would still be the existing party structure to participate in government?

Mr. Fitt: I believe, particularly bearing in mind the outcome of the last General Election, that the days of two-party government in the United Kingdom are rapidly coming to an end. That may not be reflected in the next election, but it will in the following ones.
There might still be Socialists, Conservatives and Liberals in Scotland, but under devolution the majority party would attract the most support. If its present monolithic structure remained, this could create an atmosphere in which it was taken for granted that it would control Scotland's fortunes indefinitely. That has happened in Northern Ireland. At election after election, a majority supported one political philosophy, known then as the Loyalist Party. Sectarian divides and history assured that party of being returned at every election.
Such a situation breeds arrogance and a contempt for one's opponents. That may be accepted for years but eventually those opponents will be so frustrated that the democratic system could break down, as has happened in Northern Ireland. I believe that Ireland is a political unit and that the answer to its problems will come only when it is a sovereign, independent and united State, with the friendliest and most harmonious relations with Great Britain. The two islands are so close geographically that any other situation would be nonsense. I do not believe that the struggle of Irish nationalists through the centuries or the present campaign of violence for a united Ireland will result in a panacea for all Ireland's troubles, but certainly the present system in Northern Ireland would not be acceptable to Scotland and Wales. Dangers are inherent in that system. Unless every effort is made to safeguard the new assemblies from their inception, the door could be opened to further troubles.
Any system for Scotland and Wales must have inbuilt safeguards for minorities. They would not be in the same position as the minority in Northern Ireland, because that minority is separated by the sea from the rest of the United Kingdom, they have an allegiance with the majority in the Republic and a united Ireland would mean another minority in the six

counties. We have heard from the Ulster Unionist party in the debate that devolution should not contain any elements of power sharing, that the majority party, or the Unionist coalition, should dictate affairs in the Province. I believe that both the major parties in the House have rejected that form of Government for Northern Ireland. We have clearly said that in any system of government that is to emerge from the chaos of the last few years there must be an inbuilt system of power sharing because of the history of Ireland and the divisions created over the centuries.
It is unnecessary to send an enlarged representation to this House from Northern Ireland. The system of power sharing which broke down earlier this year is the only acceptable form of Government. It provided that 12 representatives were sent to Westminster. That would have left the way open for both communities in Northern Ireland to try to change the political system, not by coercion but by common consent.

Mr. Bradford: Does the hon. Member accept that by listening to the story secondhand, successive Governments have got completely the wrong picture? There is obviously some misunderstanding about our points on Kilbrandon. Does the hon. Member not agree that democracy is a "must" in any devolved system and that if this House refuses to integrate Northern Ireland fully into the United Kingdom the only alternative will be a devolved system where democracy as it is conceived in the rest of the United Kingdom obtains. That has existed since 1920—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have been discussing this subject for hours. May I suggest that the hon. Member in intervening has exhausted his right to speak in the debate?

Mr. Fitt: I do not want to detain the House unduly but the argument put forward by the hon. Member is most contradictory. He is suggesting the adoption of one part of Kilbrandon which would enable a new Stormont to be created but with all the old attachments which brought so much discontent to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member seems to have something in common with the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. We have heard the hon. Member's philosophy which is


that of an Ulster nationalist, but here he seems to be throwing that overboard and demanding total integration. He is saying that if he cannot get total integration, he and his colleagues will settle for nothing less than the old Stormont system in which the majority will form the Government. That is what he alleges to be democracy.
Democracy means that the will of the majority must prevail while giving adequate safeguards to the minority. That never happened in Northern Ireland. The trouble was that the majority arrogated to themselves all the power and privilege and denied the minority any right to participate in the government of the province. I warn both Scottish and Welsh nationalists to be very careful of the type of devolution they wish to bring into operation.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I echo the words of those who have said that this is a shocking hour to have this most important debate. But if it had taken place in the full light of day, with many more hon. Members present, it would have been better if more speakers had spoken on the subject, the Kilbrandon Report. I exempt from that criticism my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Kilbrandon ruled out the federal system and complete independence. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Inverness about the immediate ruling out of the federal solution.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) attacked the Scottish Conservative Party. I remind him that it was the Scottish Conservative Party which, before Kilbrandon or Crowther, set up the Douglas-Home Committee, which suggested an elected Scottish assembly.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What has happened to it?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Since then we have entered Europe, a matter on which my sympathy lies not with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart but with the hon. Member for Inverness. There has been reorganisation of local government, with regions and districts, and we are now over-governed. The Con-

servative Party has not turned its back on an elected assembly but has merely said that a number of things have happened since then, and that we shall set up art assembly, which we hope will become elected one day. I should like to see an elected Scottish Assembly, and only one tier of local government.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea if the Strathclyde region were disbanded at once?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not think that that is the point at issue. We have set up a local government system in which half of Scotland is in one authority, which makes it difficult to have one other body covering the whole of Scotland. My solution would be an elected assembly and one tier of local government with rather more authorities than the present regions but fewer than the present districts.
What I and all my party are against is the complete separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom. Members of the Scottish National Party fail to mention exactly what they mean. Independence means a border, customs and tariffs. Oil can bring to Scotland 26,000–36,000 new jobs, but there are 2¼ million other people employed in Scotland, and their biggest export market is England. If we have an independent Scotland we shall damage the industries in the central belt and cause some unemployment in Scotland until there are readjustments.

Mr. MacCormick: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Scotland has industries that would not be in Scotland if it were not part of a United Kingdom economy. For more than 250 years there has been no such thing as a Scottish economy; there is only a United Kingdom economy, and to break it up would do damage to Scotland.
I am all for devolution, all for change in government, all for a Scottish Assembly and an elected assembly in due course. But I am utterly against a break-up of the United Kingdom.

5.35 a.m.

Mr. George Reid: I shall be very brief. The one common strand throughout the debate has been that it is wrong that we should have to be here in the small hours


of the morning to debate a matter of such significance to the Scottish people, the debate basically having been drawn out of the hat. I believe that that is the view of hon. Members from all parties.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made a relevant contribution when he suggested that the two-party system is breaking up. He said that the last election was not a rogue election or a one-off election but a harbinger of what we are to experience in future. That is true.
In the regions and throughout the country there is a feeling that we should move away from the two-party system and move back to the separate regions and the separate nations within the United Kingdom. There is a rejection of the basic view that "big is better". That, too, underlies the whole debate.
It has been sad to see only one Scottish Labour hon. Member present during the debate. Many of the smaller countries of Europe which have been separate and nationalist have also been socialist. Many useful contributions to social democracy have been made by the Yugoslavian Republics and by Czechoslovakia before the War. That applied to Chile until the junta and to the countries of Scandinavia.
What 28th February did for Scotland was to bring a divide in our history. It was brought about by the presence of the SNP here, by its 17 second places and by its 630,000 votes. It jolted the complacency at Westminster and the Government started to make things move. Initially we thought that the Government were moving with speed but we see what has happened in five months. The Green Paper was to come out at tremendous speed. In fact, it took three months. Lord Crowther-Hunt had to go through a period of conversion. He had to take his own minority report and deny it. There was a reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) that a White Paper would, he hoped, be published before the Summer Recess. That has now gone into the Autumn.
It is not surprising, when we consider the debates that took place at the special conference of the Scottish Labour Party and the deeply divided nature of that body, that five members of the Scottish

Labour Executive voted for devolution and six against. Despite the fact that the Scottish Labour Party is so heavily against devolution, the curious thing is that the National Executive of the Labour Party in London overruled it and decided in favour of devolution.
The catalyst in all this is Scottisn resources. Hon. Members are well aware of my party's view on this subject—namely, that Scotland itself should have a degree of social justice, a degree of wealth and prosperity. My party believes that the oil is our natural resource and that it should not be used to shore up a bankrupt United Kingdom. There has been some form of consultation on this, but I believe that the ultimate decision will be taken at the next election. It is not this House which will decide self-government for the Scottish people. It is not the Government that will make that decision. It is the Scottish people themselves.

5.38 a.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall be very brief at this late hour. Those Members who complain about this subject being debated at this hour must bear in mind that we have been able to have a longer debate, albeit at a somewhat awkward time, than would have been possible in the morning in Scottish Grand Committee. I hope that those who have complained will realise that we have been able to have a very full debate. I shall be brief in respect to those who have to follow us.
I make my second point with particular reference to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Gentleman criticised the Opposition for not choosing this subject for debate in Scottish Grand Committee. I remind him that we are debating the report of a Royal Commission which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will accept that the initiative in these matters rests very much with the Government. It is the Government who take the initiative regarding when and how such a matter is debated. I make that point simply as a matter of accuracy to which I hope the hon. Member for Western Isles will pay attention.
To reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. Fairgrieve) said—here again I appeal to


the hon. Member for Western Isles to get the facts right and to be accurate—the Douglas-Home Committee was established in advance and not following the establishment of the Kilbrandon Royal Commission. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House so I point out that the initiative in these constitutional matters which was taken by the Conservative Party was in advance of the Hamilton by-election. That is a fact for which he should give credit to the Conservative Party not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom. It took the initiative in advance of some of the events that have taken place and not as a consequence of polling.
It is vital that this subject should be debated in the context of the United Kingdom and not confined simply to Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. We in the United Kingdom are spread over a relatively small area of land. Historically, we are very much tied together. What happens in Scotland affects people in England; what happens in Wales affects people in Scotland. We are very much integrated communities.
This House is the right place to debate the subject, and I beg all right hon. and hon. Members, particularly hon. Members representing the Scottish National Party, to consider and debate properly and fully the consequences for everyone else in the United Kingdom and not to be selfish in considering simply how the issue affects themselves only.
I beg all parties and individuals with contributions to make to state plainly where they stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) plainly spelt out where the Conservative Party stands. But the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) did not spell out where the SNP stands. I beg the SNP to be fair to the electorate of Scotland and to the people elsewhere in the United Kingdom and tell us just what the party means in terms of nationalism and separatism. If the debate is to be conducted fairly and honestly, that must be done.
We owe a great deal in the debate to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). We have to face the practicalities of what is involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart spoke of the context of central and local govern-

ment and all that that means. We have to accept these things as facts of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West spoke of the organisation of industry and commerce in the United Kingdom. That, again, is a fact of life that we have to accept.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West spoke of how this issue has affected Ulster, of what some of the consequences may be, and how dangerous it is simply to pursue narrow political ideals without working out the practicalities involved. We all, particularly the SNP and the Welsh nationalists, must face the practicalities of what is involved and not talk simply in terms of political idealism, important though that is.
That is all I want to say on the subject now. What is so important and vital is that so many hon. Members realise above all, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) showed, that we must get the answer right at the end of the day. That is why debates like this are important and why, if we go too fast and get the wrong answer, it is not we who will suffer but our children and our children's children.
I beg all those who will contribute to ensure that at the end of the day we pursue this matter, not from the point of view of narrow party advantage but to ensure that what we do is to the benefit of the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that we all find our rightful places historically in the United Kingdom.

5.45 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): In quite a long debate for a Consolidated Fund Bill debate we have covered nearly all the points of view one would expect to be expressed in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) expressed a point of view which was reiterated by many other hon. Members. That concerned the lack of debate on this very important subject over the past few months. Perhaps at this stage I should give some reason why it has worked in that way.
We all know that the level of consultation and the way in which consultation was arranged and decided upon by the Government meant that the normal processes of debate were postponed until the


Government were in a position to put something before the House which arose from this kind of consultation. At this point I should stress the very wide range of consultation and the great amount of work that has been involved; the collecting, collating and preparation of the wide range of views—very important views. Although these views found expression in the speeches of so many hon. Members, it would be insufficient, for a matter as important as this, to leave it to such a debate in order to get the full expression of views.
There will be need for a great debate in the House, but there is also a need to collect views from all those claiming to represent industry, commerce, the professions and a wide range of people in various parts of the United Kingdom. That has gone forward with quite exceptional speed. This is a matter of fundamental importance. We may be taking steps which will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reverse. In a matter as important as this, it is clear that we should progress with careful procedures.
These procedures have been examined. I do not think that anyone is in a position to condemn or even criticise the way in which this has been done. I notice that no hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has attempted to do that. I take comfort from the fact that the procedures initiated by Lord Crowther-Hunt and the manner in which he has conducted his consultation have raised not a breath of criticism in this fairly long debate. Because of that, I think that the way in which this matter has been conducted has the support of the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South stated that he was in favour of Scheme A, as did a number of other hon. Members. One thing is fairly clear: this is one of the particular aspects which needs to be considered by those concerned, as to how we can retain the economic unity of our country with the measures that would lead both to Scheme A and the consequences that would flow therefrom. The hon. Member talked about the ill of the majority needing to prevail in the Scheme A that he had in mind. The Government feel that this matter is fundamentally important, and that there must

be power-sharing in the context of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) talked about the need for legislative devolution and pointed out in emotional terms—which I am sure struck a chord in the hearts of anyone who looks at certain disadvantages to be found in his country and other parts of the United Kingdom—the economic disadvantages that exist. We must not inevitably look for a sollution only in terms of legislative devolution. The Government's regional policies represent one way of dealing with the problem. I believe that regional policies are only in their infancy. As long as there are inequalities in economic progress throughout the country, that shows that central Government, to some degree, have not succeeded in a fundamental part of their objective, namely the equalising of economic advantage. It is no coincidence that regional policies wax strong when there is a Labour Government. The development of the regions has always been an important part of the Labour Party's economic objectives.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) attacked the Conservative Party in Scotland. It is not part of my task to enter into that kind of warfare. I should say that the hon. Member, while favouring Scheme A, also favoured control over United Kingdom ministries. If this were to be a proposal, the consequences would need to be thought out in great detail. Once we give that kind of power to an elected parliament in Scotland, or the other countries, the consequences for industry and the changes overall could be of much more fundamental importance, affecting the livelihood of all the people concerned.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the hon. Gentleman read the detailed submission made by the SNP to Lord Crowther-Hunt?

Mr. Sheldon: Yes. I believe that these are matters which the Government might want to consider. The important point is that at the end of the day the more fundamental the proposition, the more thorough the scrutiny must be.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart made a useful speech. I was not able to agree with all of it. There was one point made by him upon which I think


we can all agree, namely that whatever form of government might be devised for Scotland, however allied to the Government of the United Kingdom, it needs to be efficient and responsive. This will be one of the tests of the success of any devolutionary form of government that might come to be established. I noted the point the hon. Member made about the non-elected assembly with a later option to convert to something better and more representative. I do not wish to go into that at this point because it is a viewpoint which seems to be peculiar to his own party.
When we are considering fundamental changes it is not unreasonable for the Government to say that while they are collecting the voices and taking note of the experiences of all concerned, they should have the advantage of being in a position to await the crystalising of opinion. Although there are a number of hon. Gentlemen who came into this House representing points of view held by their electors, and as such they deserve and must expect the right to be listened to, it is not entirely unnatural that the Government should also want to make sure just how strongly that opinion has formed. If errors were made as a result of over-hasty legislation, it would be regretted for decades.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to comment on the indirectly elected aspect because it was peculiar to the Conservative Party. Does that mean that the Government have determined that, although their policy has not been clarified, they will opt for a directly elected assembly?

Mr. Sheldon: I have made no such comment. I do not want to prejudge any of the decisions which the Government will make when they bring out the White Paper in the autumn because the consultations are not yet complete. Expressions of view are still being received and collated and until that process is complete the White Paper cannot be prepared.
When we have the various expressions of view from the Scottish National Party and the Welsh National Party, we must reconcile as best we can the different views in order to come to one conclusion. This debate has clearly shown the division of views. We must put together a package which will cause the least dissatisfaction

and distress and present an efficient and responsive assembly or body.
Our country has suffered a consider able decline in the past 10 or 15 years. It is natural in such a period of decline that we should scrutinise our own institutions. All out national institutions—Government, Civil Service, universities, trade unions and elected bodies—have been scrutinised to discover where they are wanting. Perhaps we sometimes tend to overdo this because many of our institutions, even those we want to improve and change, have been some of our greatest assets.
There is a need for change; that is recognised in the House. There is a need to recognise the diversity and talents of our people. We must institute change with an understanding of its consequences and about where it will lead, not only in the various parts of the United Kingdom but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that there must be an acceptable degree of change, and he went on to say that great changes should be taken slowly. I would not say very slowly. I would not possibly say slowly, but these great changes—some of the greatest we can envisage being made in the House—probably need to be examined with greater care than almost any of the other great changes which are upon us.
The results will be available in the autumn. For a matter as important as this, I do not think that that is going too slowly. I urge the House to have this minimum amount of patience for the great changes which may lie ahead.

Orders of the Day — LOW-PAID WORKERS

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I take this opportunity to lay before the House the worsening poverty of several millions of our fellow citizens who are in full-time work. I refer particularly to workers for whom the Government have a direct and special responsibility which they are not carrying out and which has not been carried out for many years, that is to say, to men and women employed in the public sector and in industries for which for nearly 70 years the Government have accepted


special responsibility since the wages council system was set up.
I do this against a background of rising unemployment and accelerating inflation. The rising unemployment, alas, prevents many of those who are on poverty earnings voting against poverty with their feet. In more prosperous times the postmen voted with their feet by quitting the postal service and getting employment elsewhere when they were dissatisfied with their poor settlement. Against a background of rising unemployment such action becomes less and less possible, and people are trapped in low-paid occupations.
At a time of accelerating inflation, wealth is being unfairly redistributed in a thoroughly regressive manner. Rapid inflation is a way of penalising the poor and favouring a small section of privileged people in the community. The impact of rising prices is greater the lower one is on the pay scale. At the higher income level people who are faced with rising prices can postpone some of their planned expenditure. In the middle income range great burdens ensue from inflation because of hire-purchase and mortgage costs, but at least the essentials can still be provided for the home and family. But for the low paid the situation gets grimmer and grimmer. Not only do family pleasures and simple essentials go by the board, but people do not have the time or ingenuity or the family support to go through the rigmarole of means tests through which modest relief might be obtained.
Central and local government are necessarily the biggest offenders because they are the biggest employers of the low paid. My figures relate to adult male workers, not because female workers are any less important—far from it—but because unless equal pay becomes a fact male wages tend to be higher than female wages across the board. It follows that the female figures are likely to be worse than the male figures I shall quote.
I estimate that in the public sector at least 250,000 full-time adult male workers are low paid by any acceptable criterion of low pay. There has been almost incessant talk about the need to do something for the low paid, but there has been little action. I hope that the Minister, who has great understanding and

experience of these matters, will be able to cite examples of protection for the low paid.
I hope that he will be able to show now, as distinct from the period of Conservative Government, that the people handing out social security at the counters are not themselves in large numbers having to claim FIS for their own families. I await with interest the Minister's observations on that score. I believe that under the Conservative Government the House was virtually misled on the position of employees of the Department of Health and Social Security who were at that time in large numbers drawing FIS.
Although I hope to have news of some improvements in some parts of the public sector, the fact remains that there is an appalling, and in many ways worsening, degree of intolerably low pay. To take a topical example, the rates for adult male full-time ancillary workers in our hospitals in Grade B, for a 40-hour week, provide a gross wage of only £22·80 for hospital laundrymen. Grade C provides only £23·36 for the man who undertakes a responsible job in a hospital central sterile department where any kind of error, slackness or lack of energy can have serious results for the patients. The rate for porters—workers who have to deal with patients in many of our appallingly ancient hospital buildings, negotiating antiquated corridors putting patients into inadequate lifts and taking them away from operation theatres still anaesthetised—is for full-time work only £23·96.
I turn to local government in which respect I believe that we all as ratepayers must share in the guilt in expecting workers to undertake unpleasant public services for an intolerably low return. Let us take the people who man the school-crossing patrols. We know the increasingly hazardous nature of that job, shepherding high-spirited young people across desperately busy highways. Those patrolmen are largely in Grade A, but for a full-time week they earn only £22·17. The unpleasant job of street cleaning or labouring on public sewage farms is rewarded by a pittance of £22·26.
The Government cannot escape their moral responsibilities in ceasing to employ these ill-paid people by turning to such services as contract cleaning. The


Government must remain responsible for the miserably low rates which the tightly-knit group of contract cleaning firms in Whitehall and regional offices in many cases pay.
It may be said that all this ought to be dealt with by collective bargaining. But we have it on the authority of enlightened union leaders that collective bargaining has been unable to produce an answer to low pay. That is not surprising, because the context in which pay negotiations take place does not allow for special objectives such as the upgrading of the low paid to come into the argument.
Round the negotiating table, the structure of discussion is strict, rigid and firmly established. The history of recent years when attempts have been made to press the claims of the low paid has shown that our negotiating procedures rarely allow for the special objective of helping the low paid to have an effective hearing.
In the public sector, differentials of pay are not changing in favour of the low paid. In my view and that of my party, there has to be firm Government intervention to tackle this problem, to which so much lip-service has been paid, because the trend is getting worse, and this is happening all the time.
When the Labour Party was previously in power in 1969, the Government produced a White Paper on productivity, prices and incomes. Many of us who were here then remember so well that they had the frankness to admit:
One of the weaknesses of the system of free collective bargaining has been its inability to solve the problem of the low paid.
Matters got no better when subsequently a Conservative Government took over.
I turn now to the second half of my theme, which is the poverty amongst those adults in full-time work in the many industries covered by wages councils. This is an important area of industry in which many essential goods are produced and many essential services performed. For nearly 70 years it has been recognised that collective bargaining could not be expected to protect the majority of the workers involved.
The Minister may be in a position to provide better figures than I have, but my best estimate is that at least 140,000

manual adult male workers covered by wages councils are receiving weekly earnings for a normal week's work which are by any criterion infamously low. If I included female workers, the figure would be very much larger.
I am indebted to a recently established little team called the Low Pay Unit, which is associated with the name and the resources of the late Seebohm Rowntree, who did so much to expose mass poverty earlier this century. Its report summarises that:
During the past 10 years low-paid manual workers in wages council industries have lost ground relative to other groups and have experienced real cuts in their standard of living. Further the introduction of an incomes policy by the 1964 Labour Government and by the Heath administration has not improved the relative position of the low paid despite official suggestions to the contrary.
Despite all the homage paid to the needs of the low paid in the various incomes policies which have ground through this House, none of them has effectively tackled the problem.
As for the wages councils, I hope that the Minister will explain the extent not just of his powers but of his influence. Under the Act of 1959, which was the last piece of large-scale legislation affecting wages councils, the wages councils are independent bodies, and the Minister has no statutory duty to butt in. But he has the right to send back in toto to a wages council a recommendation from it. He has no right to alter it or to suggest any differential, but he has the right to send the whole recommendation back to the wages council as not being acceptable to him. I should think that in various channels the Minister and his associates must have some influence with the wages councils.
This was to some extent proved when the Liberal Party took up the case of the lace makers in Nottingham only three years or so ago. We discovered that the wages council for the lace making industry had not met for 13 years. I pay tribute to the Department. When it heard of the reports that we were putting out, which proved to be entirely accurate and reasonably well researched, it asked us to see its officials. Then in some way or other, which it was not for me to inquire about, it was arranged that this wages council, which had been asleep for 13 years, did meet and, within a matter of


weeks, it recommended to the Minister a general rise for lace workers of no less than 43 per cent. That was at a time when the permitted norm for incomes in general was only 8 per cent.
That leads my party to suppose that somewhere behind the scenes there are channels of influence which ought to be available to the Minister and ought to be used not simply for the sake of a marginal industry such as lace making.
I have here two other examples of wages council industries where I should think the Minister's intervention is urgently required. The wages council for the laundry industry this very month has published minimum time rates for male workers, including transport workers in that industry.
From the age of 19 years upwards the minimum rate for a week of 40 hours is only £16·45. I appreciate that virtually nobody will be willing to try to live on £16·45. Therefore, a lot of overtime is worked and a lot of moonlight jobs are done and all kinds of improvisations are resorted to. But the fact is that in Government print by a Government-sponsored body—the wages council for the laundry industry—in this very month is put down this intolerably low figure of £16·45. I should have thought that the Minister could have sent that back to the wages council in accordance with his powers and said, "This simply will not do in a civilised country."
I could argue a similar case about the wages council for licensed non-residential establishments, but I will not weary the House with the figures. I could go on.
My final point about wages councils in detail concerns the enforcement of the regulations. On 21st May the Minister was kind enough to give me answers to questions that I asked about the enforcement of wages councils' regulations which, by any standard, I hope I have tended to show are themselves inadequate. Since the standards are so dismally low I expected genuine efforts to be made to enforce them, such as they are. But one of the Minister's answers indicated that, for instance, during 1973 his inspectors had uncovered, presumably by spot checks, no fewer than 7,524 cases of under-paying of wages, 19,737 cases of time records not kept and, quite separately, 3,182 cases of time records which

were inadequate under the legislation. The list continues with formidable figures. The punch line in the Minister's answer was this:
No employer was prosecuted for a breach of the regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1974; Vol. 874 c. 78.]
The text of the law and police and court action are not the answer to human problems, but to give some indication that the Government take the wages council procedure seriously and want to uphold the authority of these bodies there should be at least some prosecutions in the more flagrant cases.
An answer I had from the Minister's colleague made it clear that the trend of offences against wages council legislation over the past five years had if anything been upwards.
We are dealing with a problem which is difficult for a democracy, because poverty is no longer an affair of the masses. This is something for which the Labour Party can rightly take considerable credit. Poverty is now to be reckoned in millions but it no longer affects the majority of our fellow citizens.
The present Home Secretary put the matter very well in a weekend speech when he was in opposition, from which I quote:
Today the many are not poor. The many while far from rich, have an approach to comfort and have some free spending money. The poor are now a minority, but a very sizable minority. And the hard fact is that, if the social forces that sustain injustice are to be offset, then the comfortable majority of our people will have to make their contribution… We have to persuade motor car workers for instance in my constituency that they have an obligation to low-paid workers in the public sector.
The Minister is bound to admit that the record of his party in recent years in government has fallen behind the splendid traditions of the Labour movement of which my own constituency had a glorious party. In the Fabian publication "Labour and Inequality" Mr. John Hughes, the Vice-Principal of Ruskin College and Director of the Trade Union Research Unit said this about the last Labour Government:
We cannot find any important examples of relative improvement in the lot of the low-paid worker during the years of the Labour Government.
I hope that the Minister will be able to show that he has taken these words to


heart and that the present administration will come forward with some new, bold and, above all, humane proposals for those of our working fellow citizens who still have an intolerably low standard of life.

6.19 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I am glad that we are having this debate, although it is inevitably a short one. It is greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that he has enabled us to discuss a subject which by any objective criteria is a very serious one. It is a subject to which the Government have been giving attention and wish to give increasing attention in months to come.
Since the Government took office, the Department of Employment has had two major priorities on the pay and industrial relations front—the abolition of the statutorypay controls and the repeal of the previous Government's Industrial Relations Act. With these two objectives achieved by the time the House goes into recess—as we hope they will—we shall be able to do more to forward our other objectives, among which the improvement of the position of the low-paid ranks high. I hope to demonstrate that in the two measures I have mentioned we have had a particular regard for low-paid workers.
I do not think anyone could reasonably question the reality of the Governments' commitment. Vitually everything that we have done on the social contract—on rents, food subsidies, rates and so on—helps the less well off, though not only them. We shall be continuing and developing this policy and, as time goes on we shall have, through the reports of the Royal Commission, which I shall be referring to more fully in a moment, a more comprehensive factual and statistical basis on which to found our strategy for the low paid.
In our discussions with the TUC—which were essential if there was to be a realisation of the social contract—we have had a special regard for the low paid, and in the advice that the TUC has given to all member unions particular attention has been drawn to the need, even in the difficult circumstances at present facing the country, to improve the position of the low paid.
The Government have welcomed the TUC guidlines published on 26th June which include a low-pay target of £25 a week. As the TUC report points out, for some groups rates are equivalent to earnings whereas for other groups rates are generally lower than earnings. The negotiation of a minimum figure will therefore be a complex matter and it would be wrong to expect a uniform solution. I must emphasise that this—like everything else—will be a matter for negotiation between those directly involved.
Paragraph 34(vi) of the TUC statement "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract" says:
Priority should be given to attaining reasonable minimum standards, including the TUC's low-pay target of a £25 minimum basic rate with higher minimum earnings, for a normal week for those aged 18 or over".
Some consideration has to be given to the extent to which a national wage might be a solution. However, while the idea has a certain attractiveness, I do not believe that it would be an effective means of securing a lasting improvement in the relative postion of the low paid. It would also be very costly. Experience in other countries suggests that traditional differentials tend to reassert themselves in a comparatively short time. This also means that a statutory minimum wage is likely to be much more costly than it might seem at first sight. Moreover there is always a risk that the employment of some of the less-productive workers will become uneconomic and that unemployment will therefore increase.
I believe that voluntary collective bargaining, backed by strong trade unions, is the only effective means to ensure a decent wage for working people—

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Would the Minister be willing to consider not a national minimum wage, the difficulties of which I readily appreciate, but the experience of other countries with a national minimum earnings level for a normal week?

Mr. Booth: That is also a matter which is under consideration. Some of the difficulties which apply to a national minimum wage also apply to a national minimum earnings system. I hope to say something about other ways of tackling this matter, although I take the view


that effective trade union representation is the only way of dealing with the problem of low pay. However, I do not rest on that argument as a means of saying that the Government should do nothing about it. There are certain things which the Government must do if the problem is to be solved. In order to inform themselves, the Government need to have a broader examination of income and wealth than has taken place up to now in this country.
That is one reason why the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 18th July that a Royal Commission would be established under the chairmanship of Lord Diamond and would begin work by the end of July. The names of the other members of the Commission will be announced shortly. The consultative document issued on 10th June mentioned that a possible subject for early reference might be the field of low pay. This reference will probably be made in the early autumn and will at last provide a firm factual basis for our policies to alleviate the problems of low pay in all sectors of employment. My right hon. Friend has also published a consultative document on the first reference to the Commission—a standing reference on the distribution of income and wealth. The Commission will begin work on this as soon as it has been formally set up.
The Commission is an integral part of our policy to create a fairer society which, as we said in our election manifesto, requires an impartial study of the present distribution of incomes and wealth, both earned and unearned. The Commission will be primarily educational, concerned with general issues rather than particular cases, and it will produce reports of a factual nature which will assist policy makers and those who are active in collective bargaining.
As I have said, I believe that the effectiveness of trade union organisation of the low paid depends to some extent on the actions of Government and State. This is why we have considered their position in the preparation of an employment protection Bill. It is the Government's intention to introduce such a Bill. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot at present say with precision what the Bill will contain, but I can say that the problems of the

low paid will not be forgotten. A consultative document will be published later this year and the views of hon. Members and interested organisations will be sought at that time.
I will now turn to the specific area of wages council industries. Wages councils are part of industry's negotiating machinery and, being made up of representatives drawn from the two sides of the industries concerned, have traditionally been allowed to settle at their own levels. Indeed the Wages Councils Act confers no powers on Ministers to alter their proposals. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about a Minister having the right to send back the proposals of a council. It has been my experience in my limited time in office and previously when I considered wages councils orders as a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee that their procedure is so inordinately slow that I would dread to send a report back, knowing the procedure which would then have to be followed to reconsider wages in the sector of industry concerned. One effect would be to delay even longer the payment of the increase in wages, meagre and inadequate though it frequently is.
During periods of incomes policy, wages councils have been required to observe the same limits on pay increases, reductions in hours or improvements in other conditions as the rest of industry. In this sector there is, however, the complicating factor of the statutory procedure prescribed, which creates lengthy intervals between the date of settlement and the date of implementation. This interval was further extended under the counter-inflation programme by the need for proposals to be studied by the Pay Board before publication.
During our debate on the abolition of the Pay Board, I quoted the case of the Licensed Residential Wages Coucil, and described how a group of workers waited from June of one year all through that year to February of the following year for an increase. The delay from the second of June to February, which made up the total delay to 20 months, was caused entirely by the Pay Boards' consideration of the wages council proposal. The rates which it produced were such as to appal me and anyone else who was concerned about the problems of the low paid.
The hon. Member quoted fairly the rates of another wages council and compared the low paid position of people in the public service with those on wages council arrangements. I object to neither comparison. Both are valid in the context of a low pay debate. But when one compares public service wages—the hon. Member quoted the £22·80 for the hospital handyman and £22·96 for the hospital porter—with wages of workers in the licensed residential wages councils—one realises that bad as public service wages are, there are wages councils where the situation is very much worse. We should bear in mind that these wages council workers waited 20 months for an award which gave male service workers in C area, the biggest in the country, from £11·58 for group 10 workers up to £17·58 for group 6 workers. From these wages deductions are made for meals or places of residence and so on and from that we can see how very much more serious is the problem in the wages council sphere.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: May I take up the point about delay? In the case to which the Minister referred, in which the Pay Board took this inordinately long time to consider the wages council recommendation, would the workers have suffered if the Minister, who was a Conservative, had sent the wages council recommendation back to it rather than allowing it to go forward to the Pay Board with all the consequent delay?

Mr. Booth: My view is that they could have suffered. I met representatives of this council—the independent chairman and employer and union representatives—and the view they put to me very strongly was that any tampering with the rates—of course I wanted to tamper with them to improve them—could upset the proposal so that the award would have to go right through the machinery of consideration again. That is why I do not feel that the answer to low pay lies in the present system of wages council machinery, although I accept that in the absence of any better form of protection we shall have to retain the wages councils and consideration will have to be given to ways of speeding up their proceedings and even to reinforcing the protection they give. The evidence we have shows that the machinery does not lend itself

to providing speedy or improved protection.
Recently, wages councils generally have taken full advantage of the provisions in the Pay Code. In particular, with very few exceptions they have made the maximum permitted reductions in the differentials between men's and women's rates. Since the majority of the labour force in wages councils industries is made up of women, it is thought that at least their relative position will have improved.
Some changes in wages councils legislation have been considered to bring about an improvement in the present system. In the longer term, the Government hope to see the establishment of voluntary collective bargaining in the wages council sector where it does not already exist so that the statutory system can be progressively superseded by voluntary arrangements. In this way, the workers can gain those advantages such as productivity deals, access to disputes procedures, and retrospection of awards which it has not been possible to extend to them in the past by means of wages regulation orders.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Low Pay Unit, which has published a paper on low pay in the wages council field. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to meet Mr. Frank Field on 7th August to discuss the paper, and I do not wish to anticipate what might be said at that meeting.
In view of what has been said about low pay in the public sector, I want to point out that there is no general problem of low pay in that sector, but there are a number of groups, such as nurses, National Health Service ancillaries and local authority manual workers who are among the low paid.
The pay of nurses is being examined by the Halsbury inquiry which is now expected to report by about mid-September. Increases in pay resulting from the inquiry will be backdated to 23rd May, when the inquiry was announced. Nurses, NHS ancillaries and local authority manuals are receiving threshold payments. These now amount, at £2·40, to more than the majority in these groups received as their basic stage 3 increase, and give the lowest paid a larger percentage increase than higher paid workers.
But even in this area of low pay it is apparent that workers have sensed the benefit of organisation. We see postmen, nurses, teachers and local authority workers demonstrating their wage demands in a way that would have been inconceivable even a decade ago. I believe that it becomes more apparent when there is a Labour Government; that demands are pressed in the belief that expectations will be more readily met. I do not object. I have always favoured setting a higher standard under Labour Governments, but it tends to show that where there is low pay there is no total substitute for representation and effective negotiation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Lace Finishing Workers Council, which did not meet from 1959 to 1968. On the initiative of Mr. Ray Gunter, a Minister of Labour in the previous Labour Government, the wages council was reconstituted in 1968, and two social welfare workers were appointed to represent the interests of home workers. The reconstituted council met again in 1969, and revised its rates in August 1970. It has met regularly ever since, most recently in March this year, when increases were agreed which took effect this month.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's legitimate concern. I shall never complain if he raises the problems of the low paid with me, even at half-past six in the morning.
There are serious differences in pay levels. There is the difference between one area and another, the difference between those employed in manufacturing and those employed in service, between those in the private sector and those in the public sector. But I still believe that the greatest difference is that between the organised and unorganised workers, and this is something we can partially remedy in our employment protection measure. We can possibly give to those who are now unorganised and low paid advantages in rights to negotiate which do not lie in other sectors. I trust that it is along those lines that the House will play its part in solving the problems of the low paid.

Orders of the Day — CITY PLANNING

6.45 a.m.

Sir George Young: As a new Member I find the description of our proceedings utterly misleading. Anything less consolidated than the protracted debate that has been going on for the past 12 hours would be difficult to imagine.
I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the environmental planning problems of our cities. In particular I look forward to hearing from the Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Urban Affairs) what his Department has been doing. As someone who has sat on a London Borough Council and the Greater London Council I very much welcome the appointment of the Minister to undertake his special responsibilities. It is a recognition by the Government of the deteriorating condition of the quality of life in our cities. I hope that the Minister will not think me discourteous if I say that in this Parliament I do not think that he has had much opportunity to display his wares. Yesterday I took the opportunity to acquaint myself with his pronouncements by going to the weekly indices of HANSARD. I appreciate that that is fast becoming an unfashionable way of monitoring the proceedings of the House.
It would appear from the Minister's previous interventions that he has been concerned with less strategic matters than his title might suggest—for example, the Tower of London, Temple Bar, the Palace of Westminster Car Park, a bust of the Second Viscountess Astor, the school farmhouse at Wouldham and the demolition of Cruck Barn. If that is an imperfect reflection of his responsibilities, as I am sure it must be, I hope that he will so inform the House. I and other hon. Members have high expectations.
The subject of the debate is similar to one which took place at two o'clock this morning on tackling urban deprivation. That debate was answered by the Minister of State, Home Office. This debate is to be answered by a Minister from the Department of the Environment. There is now some confusion as to which Department is responsible for improving the bad environment in our cities. The important statement of 18th July to the


House of a comprehensive community programme was made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Indeed it is the Department that is to find the money. The objectives of the programmes are
to identify the whole range of economic and social and physical or environmental problems of the area.
That might have seemed more appropriate if it had fallen within the terms of reference of the Department of the Environment. I personally welcome any attempt to tackle the inadequate environment in the cities but I wonder whether the Home Office is the appropriate agency for such a project. It does not have the close links with the local authorities that is enjoyed by the Department of the Environment and I do not think that the Home Office has the budget or the experience to tackle the problem. As the Economist said last Friday:
The Home Office was given the task of co-ordinating the urban aid programme but it patently lacks the means to do so.
If the Minister who responded to the previous debate is right in believing that the problems in our cities are among the most challenging that face us today, it is essential that central government should be clear in their own mind as to which Government Department should have the prime responsibility for solving these problems. I see little evidence of such clarity at the moment.
The environmental planning problems facing our cities are numerous and similar to those that have to be faced in most cities in the developed world. There are, however, grounds for believing that we are doing a little better than some others in attending to such problems.
The problems can be summarised as the deterioration of the quality of life in the cities as shown by the decreasing reliability of the public services, for example, the shortage of staff in many key jobs such as the police, teachers, refuse collectors and street cleaners. As a result of all these factors it is the growing wish of more and more inhabitants to leave the cities and to live elsewhere. That applies particularly to city inhabitants who have families. That can create further problems—for example, social polarisation. If the people who leave are all middle class, rating problems can be created. An exodus of the population will leave be-

hind fewer people to shoulder the burden or urban renewal.
If we are to make our cities places in which people wish to live as well as to work we must do something soon to make them more pleasant places in which to live. Both Governments will accept that as an objective. Yesterday, with the help of the GLC I compiled a list of Acts of Parliament passed in the last 10 years that have been designed to improve the environment in the cities. I will not weary hon. Members by reading it out, but in the last 10 years this House has passed Act after Act with the sole aim of improving the environment in our cities.
It started with the wholesale reorganisation of local government, beginning with London and working out to other areas. In public transport, for example, there has been the wholesale writing-off of debts and it has been handed over to local authorities to make it more responsive to local needs. Governments have given more and more grants to transport authorities to buy new buses and trains. Yet we are faced with a deterioration in the quality of service of public transport and ever-increasing costs.
We have had the Housing Act 1969, the Housing (Slum Clearance) Act 1965, the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and now the Housing Bill—all designed to improve the housing situation in our cities. Yet homelessness has increased along with the waiting lists in the London boroughs.
We have had the Road Traffic Regulations of 1967, the Transport (London) Act 1969, and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act 1973, We have instituted bus lanes, extended parking meters, installed clearways. Yet still we have traffic congestion, and life in the cities still appears to be dominated by the car.
Along with all this legislation, money has been poured into the cities through rate equalisation, the urban aid programme and the educational priority areas, and there is an increasing rate burden. Yet we do not seem to be making a big impression on the problem. Inevitably, therefore, we must ask whether the machinery of government is adequate for the task.
I believe that I can identify two deficiencies the rectification of which could make the problem easier to solve. First, the most unnecessary evil in our cities is


caused by planning blight, the urban decay which results from the inability of public authorities to make up their collective mind. In my constituency, there are two town centre schemes which may or may not go ahead. These two centres, the focal points of the communities of Ealing and Acton, are facing a slow death because the planners cannot make up their minds what to do with them. Hundreds of constituents may or may not be affected by road schemes, particularly the North Circular and the A4000. The consequence of this indecision is slow death of what should be the heart of a community.
It is happening all over our cities. As a result of planning blight, shops fall empty in the town centres because traders are reluctant to take on new leases in the uncertainty. Houses fall empty because no one will buy them, and then the squatters move in.
In many cases, Government Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment, are to blame. For example, the Greater London Development Plan was formulated in the mid-1960s, subjected to inquiry in 1971, and delivered to the Secretary of State in December 1972. We are still waiting for a decision on it. It is 10 years since the document was prepared. The whole framework within which our capital should be planned is still in abeyance.
In London one sees hundreds of acres in dockland not built on because the planners cannot decide what to do with them or how much to pay each other for them. Much of Piccadilly Circus, Soho and Covent Garden, the centre of London, is blighted because of planning indecision.
The problems of our cities are enough without the additional burden of planning blight. We cannot afford to let land lie idle year after year because we cannot decide what to do with it. I appreciate that the Dobry Committee has been set up to look into the problem of blight and I hope that it comes up with strong recommendations.
Secondly, we have split the responsibility for planning between two public bodies. For example, the Department of the Environment is busy building motorways between our cities. On the other

hand, local authorities such as the GLC have set their faces against building urban motorways. Both positions are tenable—that of the Department of the Environment and that of the GLC. But where both policies are implemented one gets what those in the computer industry call interface problems.
If one looks at a map of London one sees motorways coverging on London from all directions, yet there is not the road capacity within London to absorb the traffic they carry. A consequence of splitting responsibility for planning roads has been intense environmental problems on the outskirts of London.
Likewise, there have been similar problems where planning responsibility has been divided between the GLC and the London boroughs. For example, the GLC bus lane programme has been vigorously resisted by some local authorities, and the GLC proposals to pedestrianise some streets such as Oxford Street and the King's Road, have always been resisted by the local authorities. The consequence of the two tiers pursuing different planning policies is clearly something that we could usefully do without.
I put it to the Minister, therefore, that quicker decisions to remove planning blight and the rationalisation of the planning process are two solutions which could to some extent reduce the environmental problems in our cities.
I make two final points. Perhaps the major problem facing us in our cities, particularly in those areas where urban renewal is overdue and inevitable, is how to create a new and acceptable environment. When one drives around those parts of cities which have recently been rebuilt one often sees some council estates—very often tower block accommodation—or windswept and deserted shopping centres. If one were to ask one's children whether one would be handing over to them an acceptable environment and whether they were proud of the new areas in the cities that one had created, one's children would probably say "No."
Although we have correctly identified the problems in our cities, I do not think that we have as yet identified the right solution. The environments that we are creating with some of our comprehensive redevelopment schemes are somewhat artificial and lacking in community spirit,


and many of them will be the slums of tomorrow.
I come finally to a point about the population in the cities. If we are to set high environmental standards in the cities, as I believe we should, we must accept a balanced decline in the population. If we are to increase the amount of open space per resident, if we are to build houses with gardens instead of flats with patios, if we are to provide more garages off the streets and to reduce congestion in some of the schools, we have to accept a decline in population. But we must do this in a balanced way and make sure that where accommodation is provided outside the cities jobs are available to go with the accommodation. I believe that the cities can achieve higher environmental standards with a decline in population.
I hope that the Minister will offer fresh hope to the inhabitants of our cities. They want to know that the Government recognise the problems with which the citizen is confronted. They look to the Minister for reassurance that their problems of public transport, of the poor quality of the postal service, of traffic jams, noise and litter, are constantly in the Minister's mind. We look to him for the answers to all our problems at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Charles Morris— with the leave of the House.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): This has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) for the opportunity of dealing with the crucially important issues that he has raised. His speech has shown the degree of concern felt about these vital problems on both sides of the House. It has shown how diffuse and complex the problems are.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that people were looking to me and my ministerial responsibilities to offer the solutions to all their problems. Frankly, I cannot hope to make any such claims. All I can do is to show my concern for the environmental problems which affect our people as a result of living in Britain's cities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of issues. I ask him to believe

me when I say that some of them which my right hon. Friend and I, and my colleagues, regard as vitally important, have engaged our attention from the first day we took office. It might be asked how we are meeting the challenge of improving the quality of life in our cities.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I outlined our broad strategy. The first significant step was the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to recognise overtly, in Government, that urban problems do exist and that they need to be looked at in the round, bringing together all of the interests concerned. He did this by creating the ministerial post which I occupy. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and courteous comments about my appointment. I have noted the points he made and the comments he voiced about my area of responsibility.
I accept that there is confusion in some minds over the lines of demarcation between my responsibility and the Home Secretary's overall responsibility for the problems of the urban areas. The problems of the big cities concern just about every part of my Department and of several other Departments, in particular the Urban Deprivation Unit of the Home Office. The issues which the hon. Gentleman raised, relating to staffing difficulties, local authority problems, difficulties associated with public transport and the migration of the young, active families from inner cities, are important and I hope to comment on them later.
These issues cover the whole gamut of my ministerial responsibilities. As Minister of State for Urban Affairs I shall be bringing before my colleagues my appreciation of the problems of urban living in the big cities and the ways in which I believe the Government should respond. This involves looking at the whole range of the activities of the Department of the Environment, and how they interact and affect cities. Among the tools I shall be using in analysing the problem and moving towards a solution are the Inner Area Studies currently being undertaken by private consultants in study areas in the London Borough of Lambeth, the City of Liverpool and the City of Birmingham.
These studies are beginning to produce valuable insights into the problems faced by local authorities in their administrative


areas on the ground. Reports are beginning to flow from these studies. I am sure that they will provide some useful guidelines on the way in which these problems can best be tackled. They may also contain lessons for central Government.
Increasingly, with the more positive policies we have been promoting I expect to see studies such as these, and other forms of partnership with local authorities, serve as a test bed for new ideas—ideas dealing with a more sensible community-based urban renewal policy, ideas dealing with area management of the major cities, to make the running of our big cities more effective and more humane. An experiment in area management is currently under way in the City of Liverpool with the support of the Inner Area Study. There is also an area system operating in the County Borough of Stockport.
I intend to find ways of following up these promising developments. I have considerable hopes in area management as a means of making local government closer and more responsive to the needs of ordinary people. In my view, it will be of particular benefit to the more disadvantaged, socially deprived areas.
Most of the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman can be attributed, at one level of thought, to lack of money. We would have a better transport system and we could deal with staffing shortage if we poured more money into these areas of administration. But perhaps that is too simple an analysis. There is not enough money to go round and we need to be much more critical about how we spend it. The growing emphasis on corporate management—and the hon. Gentleman, with his background of local government experience, will recognise that corporate management emanated from the Bains Report—at town hall level will help, but we need to go further and to make corporate management sensitive to areas. We need to give local quthorities the means of giving their deprived areas a better and fairer deal. This is where area management comes in.
Of the many specific problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred perhaps housing is the most central. The Government have rightly given first priority to housing and I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will accept that the Housing Bill, which recently completed its passage through the House, will provide a battery of new powers to the particular benefit of those living in stress areas in the big cities. I hope that local authorities will take hold of the provisions of the Bill in the spirit in which they were conceived and build on them a more comprehensive approach to the whole range of urban problems.
As part of the same concerted attack, the Home Secretary announced his proposals the other day for tackling the hard core pockets of deprivation through the comprehensive community programme. This is a new form of integrated interdepartmental approach. I described it at the time as the opening of a new front in the attack on urban deprivation.
So much for the broad policy. One might ask, "What about the specific items raised by the hon. Gentleman?" I hope that the House will forgive me if at this hour. I deal with them somewha selectively. Public sector staff shortages have been building up over the years and have caused some services, particularly public transport, to deteriorate. Other services have been maintained only by existing staff working long hours. The London Manpower Study has been set up to investigate the problem. The Department of the Environment and its officials are taking the lead with the Department of Employment, the GLC and the London borough associations as the other regular participants.
Following the first meeting, the study group decided to invite a TUC representative to join it. The problems of a number of public service employers will be studied. It will not be a quick exercise. The study group hopes to report by January 1975. To the extent that the same problems exist in other cities, the work of the London study group should help to throw light on them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to young families moving away from cities, and he readily accepted that some reduction in the population of the cities, particularly London, is desirable. Understandably, authorities are worried about the steady loss of the most economically active part of their population because of their inability to get a decent standard of living in the area in which they have been


brought up. For this reason some authorities have been assisting young people by a number of schemes. One is by building for sale—a scheme which was initiated by the Borough of Newham. The scheme makes use of land owned by the local authority, upon which a private developer erects dwellings for sale to purchasers nominated by the local authority. We hope that this scheme, if followed by other authorities, will make a contribution towards resolving the difficulties referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the deterioration of public transport services. I will indicate briefly the measures which are being taken to improve productivity. London Transport is converting the Circle, Hammersmith and City trains to one-man operation. Further conversions will be made in due course, but it is a costly process in advance of normal stock replacement schedules. Additionally, about 40 per cent. of London's buses are planned to be one-man operated. It is not proposed at present to go further than that. An increasing use of bus lanes and other priority traffic measures for buses are under active consideration. Equally, a new source of manpower—or perhaps I should say womanpower—is available in that the use of women bus drivers has been agreed with the unions and is in operation. New signalling on British Railways is being put into operation to enable reductions to be made in the signalling staff.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are mindful of the difficulties to which he referred. I have described how we are tackling particular issues, and the hon. Gentleman may ask how we mould our efforts together. I mentioned earlier the inner city studies. I am speeding up the results of the studies but, in the nature of things, the time scale is medium-term rather than short-term. The aim is to get better understanding of urban problems by those who deal with them in Parliament, in the town hall and in Whitehall. The result will be better-informed decisions at all levels. The problems of our major cities are both acute and pressing. Where we can already see what action is needed there should be no delay.
The comprehensive community programmes to which I referred and which are to be developed by my right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary will have a time horizon of no more than five years. They will be concerned with areas of most acute urban deprivation.
The urban conferences which I have already begun with local authorities in the six metropolitan counties are aimed at getting to grips with the wider problems of the provincial conurbations. They are concerned with the whole range of urban problems to which reference has been made. The purpose is two-fold. The first purpose is to get the local authority's assessment of the problems and priorities for action over the next few years. The second purpose is discussion of the implications in terms of action by both central and local government. These are not academic studies or seminars. They are frank exchanges between decision-makers about what needs to be done and how it can best be done promptly.
The local authorities in the cities have to deal on the ground with problems of urban living, and they have a vast amount of knowledge and experience of them. Through these conferences, I want the Government to benefit from this knowledge and experience. In these matters, I am convinced that Whitehall—or even Marsham Street—does not always know best.
Though my own responsibilities lie within the Department of the Environment, I am holding the conferences with the full support and help of my right hon. Friends, the Home Secretary, and the Secretaries of State for Employment, Industry, Education and Science, and Social Services. The problems of our cities do not respect the neat boundaries of Government organisation, and it is little use asking the local authorities to adopt a total approach to problems, if Government Departments fail to respond in like manner. At the end of the first round of conferences, towards the end of this year, it is my intention to present to my colleagues my conclusions on the whole range of such problems.
The hon. Gentleman referred to blight and the problems that arise from indecision on planning proposals and referred to two particular town centre schemes in his constituency. I am prepared to consider any submission he wishes to make to me on those matters.
Let me say a word in conclusion about the general goals which I have set myself in discharging my responsibilities. First, I recognise that there is still a very great deal to be done to renew and improve the fabric of our major cities and to make life in them comfortable and rewarding, but the process of renewal can itself jeopardise the quality of urban community life. Therefore, I want to try to see that the process of urban renewal and improvement is humanised. The lives of people in the deprived areas can be blighted—because plans take too long to prepare, because plans when prepared take too long to implement and, above all, because people do not know what is happening to their homes. The process must necessarily involve some stress and strain, but I want suffering to be limited as much as possible.
Secondly, I want to see a better social balance in our cities. The trend is for younger people, the more energetic, the better off, and the more articulate to move out to the suburbs and the countryside near cities. The result is sometimes that the more deprived who are left behind get less than they deserve of the money and resources that are already available. I want to see that they get what their problems and needs warrant and deserve. I want to see that our urban policies work towards a more balanced social structure, for I believe that this is necessary for the health of our urban society.

Orders of the Day — COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

7.18 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: At this early hour I do not want to raise a particularly controversial matter. I do not raise this subject in any sense of massive onslaught against the Government's promises in respect of colleges of education. Unlike many of my colleagues on the Labour benches, I was rather in favour of the James Report and, so far as it concerned the colleges, the general strategy of the White Paper of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that followed it.
I was a member of the Select Committee of 1969 which inquired into teacher education. Service on that committee made it clear to me that the colleges

needed a substantial change in rôle and that some amalgamations would need to take place. Therefore, I have no broad general criticism and no desire, like Canute, to stop the tide of change in colleges of education, which is clearly coming. However, I have considerable disagreements about the way in which the operation is being carried out. I do not say that carping at my own Minister, because I believe that he is carrying out this operation in very much the same way as his predecessors did.
The substantial criticism of the operation is that it is being carried out in an atmosphere of secrecy which is producing a slow and very serious erosion of morale among teachers in the colleges. I could and should be carried out in a very much more open and orderly manner.
In general, I agree with the comment in the leader in The Times Higher Education Supplement on 28th June that
The Department should start to argue its case college by college more openly and persuasively instead of carrying out the most profound institutional reorganisation in the history of British education by stealth.
It has been left to The Times Higher Education Supplement to give us such information as we have. On 12th July of this year, we had the most comprehensive progress report on how the Department's plans for the colleges were going. This sort of information which The Times Higher Education Supplement and other newspapers have to winkle out of the Department ought to be produced quite openly periodically by the Department.
I understand that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be discussing his patch in the North of England. I want to concentrate my remarks mainly on London, because I believe that London is bearing the brunt of the reorganisation, partly because of what I call the blind percentage policy which has been applied to London in a completely meaningless way.
The White Paper suggested a 43 per cent. reduction in numbers by 1981 so as to bring the output of colleges in line with the needs of the country. We can argue about that. The National Union of Teachers, for example, says that the cut is too great. The White Paper then applied this 43 per cent., which was a broad national average, to different areas


of the country. London is losing population a little faster than other areas. It applied 54 per cent. to London, when London has rather more than its fair share of colleges.
This is an attempt to impose on London colleges an unacceptable burden of contraction which, if forced upon them, will result in grave national loss. Some of the colleges in London—for example, Goldsmiths, the Froebel College in South-West London, Rachel McMillan College, which pioneered nursery education—do not fulfil simply a local role in training teachers to teach in London. They have always fulfilled a national role not only in training teachers for London as a whole but in being in the forefront of educational advance for the country as a whole.
Simply to put London into this 54 per cent. straitjacket—or any slight erosion of which the Inner London Education Authority has managed to persuade the Department by now—is a completely blind and mindless way of proceeding. The Government would not dream of limiting London University to its proper percentage of places for the number of students that London needs. Therefore, it is wrong to apply a differential policy to the colleges.
What is becoming clear at the moment is that London schools are having problems quite disproportionately more difficult than those in the rest of the country. When, over the past year, people have said that certain London schools are on the point of collapse, in my view they have not been exaggerating. Therefore, any attempts that can be made to push the teacher-pupil ratio, particularly in London, down to a reasonable level whereby education can proceed more efficiently and, at any rate, to a position where education in London does not collapse should be welcomed. For that reason I hope that as a result of this debate, the Minister will think again about the degree to which he intends to squeeze the London colleges. It is undertandable that there has to be some cutting back. Nobody denies that. But it is the degree which is proving unacceptable to London.
My second substantial criticism of the Government—I emphasise that this is not of my hon. Friend, but of the time-honoured methods of the Department of

Education and Sceince in proceeding with colleges of education—is that they are being fundamentally hypocritical in the way that they are carrying out this operation.
The impression given at Question Time by my hon. Friend—I do not blame him—is to say, "It is for the local authorities to submit schemes, we will consider them, and we are proceeding with consultations with this, that and the other person." The Government are pretending to stand on the sidelines prating about local autonomy, whereas, as is clear from what has come out in The Times Higher Education Supplement, they are bulldozing through a plan which is clearly worked out within the Department but is not open either to the local authorities, to the public at large or to the teachers in the institutions. If the Department is going to all these lengths, as it quite properly is, to work out some plan, let us have it done more openly. Let it make it an open planning exercise and stop all this pretence that it is a job of ad hoc-ery with individual plans being considered, as it were, on their merits. I suspect that the time has come to end the secrecy and to come to some decisions.
I should like to put some specific questions to my hon. Friend, First, what about the regional advisory councils? Clearly we need some regional planning in this area. The White Paper foreshadowed in a vague way, which was never made clear, that the regional advisory councils would somehow subsume teacher training responsibilities. How far has the Department's thinking gone along those lines?
I should like to warn my hon. Friend against having too many tiers. Further education in the past has been bedevilled by too many cooks sometimes spoiling the broth. Local authorities, the Department's further education inspectors, the regional advisory councils, rather grand civil servants in the Department and the institutions themselves have all been trying to do their own planning, all thinking that they have a degree of responsibility, and it never being made clear where the autonomy lies. It is incumbent upon the Department very soon to come out with a clear statement about the future of the regional advisory councils and regional machinery generally.
I declare an interest in Battersea College of Education: I am a governor and, before I was elected to Parliament, was on the formation committee with South Bank Polytechnic. Many of the staff at Battersea were reluctant to merge with the polytechnic and were frightened of what might happen. After long discussions between governors and staff, it was agreed in principle that the college should merge with the polytechnic.
My hon. Friend will know how much of a decision to jump in at the deep end that was. Battersea College trains housecraft specialist teachers and general primary teachers. In the discussions it was argued that South Bank Polytechnic had a general educational side to it.
No sooner had the decision been taken than the Department said in an informal letter to the Inner London Education Authority, "We approve the merger, but you will have to ditch all your general primary work." It is a belief held strongly at Battersea that it does not make sense to train specialists without some part of the college concentrating on general training as well. That came like a bolt from the blue. The patient preparation by the two institutions has suffered a serious setback.
A similar situation arose with the proposed merger between Furzedown College and Philippa Fawcett College in South London which the education officer had worked out with extreme patience. Nobody could accuse Dr. Briault of being a wild revolutionary and producing unsafe schemes. It had always been assumed that there had been discussions with the Department and that the merger would go through. Suddenly—again in an informal letter from the Department—it became clear that this merger as it stands will not do and it must take place in a completely different way. Perhaps it must, but serious personnel problems will arise following the long discussions that have taken place.
There are methods of protecting the salaries of lecturers on a merger. The loss of status—for instance, losing a department—is even more traumatic than taking a cut in salary. Any commercial organisation contemplating such a vast reconstruction or merger would conduct an exercise aimed at protecting the posi-

tion of staff and resettling staff, where necessary. Many lecturers in colleges of education have given a lifetime of service and are in their fifties. It will not be easy for them suddenly to switch from teaching rather nice, well-behaved middleclass 18-year-old girls to the rough and ready conditions which must be faced in colleges of further education.
This is similar to what happened when authorities went comprehensive. If we made a mistake in that reorganisation I think it was to neglect the personnel function and to think that if grammar school teachers could teach clever kids they could also teach children who were more difficult to teach because they had more severe problems.
So far as I know, neither local authorities nor the Department of Education and Science have even begun to think about making an effort to resettle those people who will lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation. I hope that the Department will now start to take this point seriously.
The Times Higher Education Supplement was right when it called the reorganisation of colleges of education
the most profound institutional reorganisation in the history of British education…".
The reorganisation represents a tremendous change. It can produce new institutions which can take Britain into the next century. There is no reason why it should not do all the things expected of it, but it will collapse in bitterness, bewilderment and frustration if the Department continues to approach the matter in the secretive Whitehall way in which problems were approached in the 1950s and early 1960s. We need open planning from the Department, rather than secretiveness and informal letters. We also need much more openness about where the real power lies in the Department, as well as clear time scales so that the teachers involved know how long they have in which to reorganise themselves for what in many cases will be a complete change in their careers.
My worry is that the Department, because it has so much else on its plate—and there is much upon which it can congratulate itself—is carrying on rather mindlessly in exactly the same way as it did during the time of the previous Government, and that previous way was not


so much a Tory policy as a civil servants' policy. It was deep in the Weaver tradition.
If we have a more open approach we shall find that there is sufficient good will even now among staffs of the colleges to make the reorganisation a success.

7.38 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Even if I were enthusiastic about the James Report and that which follows from it as is the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) I would support the criticisms of the way in which this matter is being handled in relation to the future facing colleges, and those working in them, for reasons which I will explain shortly. But we are bound to ask how we come to be discussing college closures at all. It is principally because of population projects which suggest that we are, or will soon be, overproducing teachers in relation to the number of children in school. Population projects can be notoriously unreliable, as was shown, for instance, when it was thought that we were producing too many doctors. A decision was made accordingly, but it had to be changed quickly.
It is notable how little faith the Minister's colleagues had regarding this matter when they were in opposition. For instance, on 2nd July 1973 a motion was moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), now the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:
That this House regrets the Government's intention to reduce the number of initial training places in colleges and polytechnic departments…".
The Minister of State spoke on the motion on behalf of the then Opposition. He said:
But a more important point is that even if the reduction in birthrate was the crucial factor in the number of teachers that the Government want and hope to see in schools in 1981, that would be deeply indicative of the different attitudes of the two major parties. For one party, the Government party, a reduction in the birthrate can be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to save money. For the Labour Party a reduction of the birthrate would be looked upon as an ideal opportunity to improve standards. That is the crucial difference between us.
He went on:
The Government do not even aspire to an overall target of a better teacher supply

than 40-sized classes in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools, which is the 1945 target at which the Government are still aiming. It is certainly not a target which a Labour Government will aim at, and it is a figure which we hope will fade into the past by the end of the first Labour Government's lifetime. Consider again the opportunity which the Government have lost here. The college of education places are there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1973; Vol. 859, c. 107, 108, 116.]
He then argued what use should be made of them.
That was only a year ago. Why should not this Government act more in the spirit of those statements? I say this not by way of a party argument but simply to call attention to what the Labour spokesman was saying then. One would hope that to approach the standards of pupil-teacher ratios in the private sector would be one of the objectives that the Government would seek to pursue. Even if the standards accepted now were to be implemented, that would still be a long way from the position in the private sector. Those of us who put our faith in the public sector would like it to match these qualities of the private sector so that it can win by competition, rather than by more drastic means.
I suspect that the present surgery is too drastic. The college of education places are there and they should not be lightly thrown away. Even given that some reduction is necessary, we must question the way it is being done. Phrases such as "slaughter of the colleges" in the reputable education Press suggest that the Department's handling of the matter has not met with approval from informed opinion. It has been described as "unusually arrogant and tactless", and has been accused of
…shuffling colleges about like pawns on a chess board",
and of carrying out
…the most profound institutional reorganisation in the history of British education by stealth".
My first criticism is of the Department's refusal to disclose the overall plan, picking off the colleges one by one, as The Times Higher Education Supplement put it, without justifying the plan in an overall context. To find the overall context one has to go to the education Press. The pieces of the jigsaw have been put together by The Times Higher Education Supplement, but it is the Department's


job to disclose the plan, so that the colleges can see where they fit in any challenge arguments on a broad canvas.
My other criticism is that the Minister should not claim that he is simply advising local authorities. I am prepared to accept his good faith if he says that his plan is not final, that he proposes to discuss each proposal with the local authorities and colleges concerned and that many of the proposals will be modified. I hope they will. But is he pretending that the local authorities who might choose to go against his advice will be able to operate properly within the existing educational framework? Does he suggest that if local authorities continue colleges which he thinks should be closed or amalgamated they will be allowed the intake of students for the colleges and that their capital works will be approved by the Department in future? If so, he is saying that under his aegis there has been a major change in the way education is administered in this country. This might be welcomed, but it is asking too much to expect us to believe that he is simply advising, no more than that, and I ask him to be more frank.
The strategy I have criticised, with the failure to disclose the full plan and the attempt to convey that this is all a matter of polite advice, is particularly hard on colleges such as Alnwick in my constituency. Now we can see what the whole plan is. We can see from the education Press who is down for closure and who for amalgamation. We can see that Alnwick's case is far stronger than that of some other colleges not recommended for closure.
First, I draw the Minister's attention to the particularly good achievements of Alnwick in training mature students, many of them drawn from the college's own rural area of Northumberland. It has taken large numbers of such people who are going into teaching from other occupations. Its entry qualifications have therefore been low and the Department has used that to some extent as an argument against the college. In view of the success with students with low paper entry qualifications we can see how signal have been the college's achievements in taking people whom the education system has not treated very well and fitting them to serve in that education system.
I do not accept what appears to be the Minister's argument that we can move quickly to a graduate teaching profession. In particular I do not accept that in trying to make that move we should begin by throwing out of the education system the contribution which mature students of this kind can make with the help of a college such as Alnwick.
May I draw the Minister's attention to Alnwick's increasing work in nursery education, a field which the Department acknowledges must be expanded and upon which reductions should not be allowed to fall heavily. The college has made considerable strides there and its future contribution could be very great. I remind him of the college's reputation for experimental and adventurous course planning which attracts a particular type of student who wants more discretion over his subject than he can obtain at many other colleges.
May I draw the Minister's attention to the vital contribution the college makes to the small town of Alnwick. Employment, particularly professional employment at present provided by the college, would be irreplaceable in a town such as Alnwick which even now has less than half the national average of "group 4" professional people in its employment structure. Forty such jobs would be lost if the college were to close. A recent independent report on the economy of Alnwick said prophetically
It goes without saying that the college of education and the Ministry of Agriculture office must be retained at all costs. The local economic and social importance of such establishments is too often forgotten when their functions and provisions are being discussed at higher levels.
That importance extends to an estimated contribution of at least £300,000 a year to the economy of Alnwick by the College, and that is a considerable sum for a small town. It extends to the involvement of students and staff in every aspect of the social and cultural life of the town. It is hard to imagine how many of the events in Alnwick—the fair, and many of the artistic events—could take place without the contribution of the staff and students of the college.
The North East Development Council in its representations to the Minister has pointed out that it is by no means farfetched to compare what would happen to Oxford if the university were to close


with the impact on Alnwick of the removal of its college. I am making a comparison not of educational institutions but of the relative importance of the institutions to the towns. Oxford is a large town with alternative industrial employment. Alnwick is a small town with very few opportunities.
I ask the Minister to remind himself of the massive recent investment in Alnwick College—well over £250,000 spent on projects, and money still being spent on them, designed to equip the college for a rôle which the hon. Gentleman seems determined to take away from it.
The Minister is bound to have in his mind the supposed disadvantages of Alnwick. One of the arguments which seems to find favour in his Department is that Alnwick is remote and therefore unsuitable. I cannot see how that argument can be advanced when it is not advanced against colleges in the Lake District or Scarborough, for example, which are expected to remain open. I ask the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge how greatly communications in the area have improved, and in how short a time one can reach Alnwick from Tyneside by road.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that if Alnwick College closes he will be creating an educational void between Tyneside and Edinburgh. There will be nobody being educated beyond the age of 18 in the whole of my constituency, the whole of north Northumberland. There is no other further education in the whole area.
Another supposed disadvantage of Alnwick is the low entry standard, the low paper qualifications of students. In fact, the college's achievement has been to take people whose previous educational opportunities have been limited and achieve extremely good results and demonstrate how great their contribution to education can be.
Yet another supposed disadvantage is the difficulty Alnwick might have in establishing a validation arrangement with Newcastle University or the CNAA. The difficulty of establishing a validation arrangement between Newcastle and Alnwick has nothing to do with Alnwick College and is no sense a criticism of it. It arises from internal decisions at Newcastle as to whether that university's resources should be involved in validation at all. It represents no criticism by

Newcastle of the possibility of Alnwick's coming under its umbrella for validation purposes.
As one who was working at Newcastle when the decision was made, I recall clearly that it was an internal decision relating to the university's use of its own resources, in which individual colleges were not discussed. CNAA validation might eventually be developed by co-operation with institutions in Newcastle, which is not as far away in terms of time as the distance on the map might suggest.
Alnwick's case is supported by many people beyond its own area, including some of the Minister's hon. Friends and hon. Members on all sides of the House, who may very well ask why Northumberland in particular is being asked to sustain a high level of cuts, particularly in comparison with County Durham. If the cuts must be made in Northumberland, they may also ask, why must they fall on Alnwick and not perhaps in a more distributed way on colleges closer to Tyneside, where some of the arguments I have advanced do not apply and where the problem of replacing lost jobs is by no means as serious as at Alnwick? We are particularly disposed to ask why Alnwick must be sacrificed, in effect, to the development of education institutions within Tyneside, whether the other colleges or the polytechnic.
I realise that the Minister is due to meet representatives of the local education authority today. I do not expect him to give a decision today or to commit himself. But I must ask him to indicate certain things. First, I hope that he will be more frank with the House than he has been so far and be prepared to admit that his Department is setting out a far-reaching plan, in which it no doubt has confidence, but which should be argued thoroughly throughout the education system if it is to win the confidence of those who must work under it. The Govment must set an example of openness and a willingness to participate in discussion. They must not do so on a hole-in-the-corner one-college-at-a-time basis but in a full and open way.
In that spirit of frankness the Minister must recognise that his Department has the whip hand. He is not giving his advice. His Department has the ability to control the future of the colleges and those who teach in them. Therefore,


these decisions are crucial. I ask the Minister to recognise that his proposals represent an attempt to subordinate the educational pattern of the Alnwick college and the needs of the town to the tidiness of an administrative plan. It is very easy to destroy what has been built up but it may be harder, particularly in an area such as North Northumberland, to replace it.
The Minister has assured us—he assured me in a reply in the House—that he is in control of the situation. He has not said that his Department is carrying on with a plan of its own with which he is little concerned or that he is executing the previous Government's policies with more ruthlessness than they displayed. He has examined the plan and he is committed to it.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerald Fowler): It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman did not invent a plan and persist in claiming that it exists. If that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls, the rest of his argument falls with it.

Mr. Beith: That intervention is less than worthy of the Minister. If he reads his own copy of The Times Higher Education Supplement he will discover what he should know already—namely, that he has put forward proposals for many education colleges. It may be that his proposals should not be taken as one plan and that they should be regarded as scores of individual proposals. The Minister may wish these matters to be regarded as individual proposals but they add up to a plan which will profoundly change the educational system. Its impact on the whole college system is enormous. I cannot understand why he is so keen to deny that there is any overall thinking behind it. It would be a severe criticism of him and his Department if there were no general thinking behind the series of individual proposals which he has put forward.
I ask the Minister to consider Alnwick College with particular care in applying his set of proposals, if he would prefer to call it that, or his plan as I call it. He acknowledges that he is in control of the situation. I am prepared to believe that if he acknowledges that in this respect this is not a good plan and if he ensures

that Alnwick's future is as a college of education.

7.58 a.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for raising a matter that is becoming of increasing concern to many people not only in this House but in the teaching profession. I am sure we all wish to avoid anything that seems to harm the status and importance of teachers and that we would wish to consider carefully whether that was the result of a certain policy.
First, I wish to make the Conservative Party's position clear. I hope that the Minister of State will not quote at me the speech that he quoted recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) outlining the policy to which my hon. Friend gave his support when he was in the Department. That is our present policy for teacher training colleges. We are not going back on that. We accepted it and we accept it now.
What we do not accept is the implementation of this policy. I hope that that is clear. On this we seem to have a coalition of the three parties that are represented in the Chamber in that we are saying more or less the same thing. There is something wrong in the way this matter is being carried through. It seems to be a nonsense on the part of the Department. Perhaps the reasons for it was given inadvertently by the Minister of State in his intervention just now—that there is no plan. If there is no plan, perhaps that is why the thing is going wrong.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) mentioned Philippa Fawcett College. It is in my constituency. I have here a rather pathetic but important letter from the students' union, written without the knowledge of the principal. It says:
Philippa Fawcett College has for the past year or so been engaged in planning for an amalgamation with Furzedown College in Tooting, in line with the recommendations made in the White Paper 'A Framework for Expansion'. More recently, however, we have received a circular from Mr. Harding of D.E.S. which effectively puts paid to these plans.
The circular suggests that a further reduction in teacher training is necessary, and the impression is gained that Philippa as a centre for teacher training will undoubtedly cease


to exist, as it is suggested that we merge with the expanding F.E. Sector…".
The way this matter has been handled by the Department is alarming and confusing to the college to such an extent that the President of the Students' Union has written such a letter to me.
I wrote to the Minister, enclosing a copy of the letter, on 16th July, but to date have not had any reply. I do not wish to pursue this matter further because I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West covered the points excellently. He made the speech I would have made had he not made it first. The House would be grateful to the Minister if he would look carefully at what is going on. Why does a teacher training college first receive a circular through the post? A visit should have taken place first.
Again, why do we have in the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency a situation in which it seems that the teacher training college is being considered as though it existed in a void and is not a relevant and important part of the community? Why is it that the situation of colleges like Philippa Fawcett is such that they cannot plan ahead? The letter from the Philippa Fawcett Students' Union goes:
Without knowledge of what is being planned at a higher level we are finding it very difficult to plan ourselves, and we feel that we should be in receipt of such information in order to plan courses and seek amalgamations that would be beneficial to the teaching profession, and in line with the national picture.
The planless picture seems one of uncertainty and confusion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to take this opportunity to resolve the doubts and tell us in which way the policy is moving, reassuring us that the policy will be implemented in a thoughtful, sensitive manner with open consultations with all those concerned.

8.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerald Fowler): I have found this debate a little disappointing in the sense that, if I had not been here to speak for the Government, I would have concluded that the principal source of education planning in this country—indeed, the source of all wisdom in education—was The Times Higher Education Supplement, and that every word printed in that remarkable

journal must be accurate. Because one reporter of The Times Higher Education Supplement has succumbed to the conspiracy theory of history, it does not mean that every Member of this honourable House should do the same.
I have been accused of acting, on the one hand, as if there is an overall plan. Those words have apparently been used to mean a rigid plan which determines the future of every college in some detail. That is certainly the way in which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was using the words, until I challenged him and he slid into equating his use of the word "plan" with what he called "general thinking". Of course there is some general thinking in the attitude of myself and my Department in this matter. It would be quite extraordinary were that not so. But to say that there is general thinking does not mean that there is a detailed plan worked out in advance for every college and every area of the country.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister not recall that I conceded that the plan or set of proposals which he had may very well be provisional and that he may not be at all rigid and may be prepared to reconsider it? But does he ask us to believe that when he has made proposals for every college we are not allowed to consider this as something of a general plan, however provisional?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, but I am afraid that this is a simple matter of logic. If we take 100-and-however-many colleges it is, and ultimately there is a solution proposed, whether in the first instance by the authority or by the providing body, or perhaps in the second instance by my Department, and we come to the end of the exercise, I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will say "One hundred and so and so separate proposals all add up, making a plan." But that is not the way in which we use the word "plan" in the English language. This is a matter of simple logic. I am denying that there is an overall plan in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman was using that word early in his speech.
The local education authorities are responsible for the maintained colleges. The voluntary bodies are responsible for the voluntary colleges. Proposals come in the first instance from those bodies,


normally through the LEA. It is at that stage that my Department comments. Sometimes it says "Yes". Sometimes it says "Yes, but you might like to think of one or two alternations or additions" Sometimes it says, "We do not think this is the right way to proceed. Have another look at it if you do not mind". But my Department is not the original source of proposals. I hope that that is absolutely clear.
If I say that, I am at once open to the opposite charge. Both have been made in the debate. Hon. Members have not been quite as consistent as they seemed to think they were with each other. The opposite charge is that we are doing things, in the words of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in a hole-in-the-corner fashion on a one-college-at-a-time basis. We cannot both have an over-all plan and be doing it on a one-college-at-a-time basis. It is true that we proceed one authority at a time within the overall framework, which is perfectly public and is set out in Circular 7/73 which was issued under the Conservative Government.
That overall framework for regional distribution of teacher education places is the only overall framework that exists.
In The Times Higher Education Supplement I am told that we proceed
by stealth and by secrecy.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of one authority. I have a meeting later this morning with the local Education authority of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have a meeting, with my right hon. Friend, with representatives of another area of the country tomorrow evening. I recently went to Coventry. I have met people from Brighton. So I could go on. Is this stealth or secrecy? I know the origin of that charge. It is that the Department communicates with local education authorities and not with The Times Higher Education Supplement.

Mr. Beith: Or Members of this House.

Mr. Fowler: I was not aware that Members of this House maintained colleges of education. I cannot discuss what is the property of the local education authorities with other people until I have first discussed these matters with the

authorities. The correspondence with the local education authorities is in no sense secret. It is not marked "confidential". There is nothing to prevent the chief education officers and their committee discussing it absolutely openly—indeed copying it if they wish—with all the staff and students in the colleges. I know that some chief education officers were under a misapprehension and we have specifically written to chief education officers saying that the letters we send them on this subject are in no sense confidential. There is no stealth or secrecy.

Mr. Christopher Price: Without wishing to enter the Byzantine argument about which point of the spectrum between rigid planning and absolute ad hoc- ery the Department stands at the moment, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would not agree that the 1944 Education Act lays down a great distinction between the autonomy of local education authorities in further education generally and in teacher training? Does not the Act lay upon the Secretary of State considerable responsibilities in terms of teacher supply for the teacher training sector? From that point of view, although I take my hon. Friend's point about the way in which he has been trying to consult, does he not think that the Department has some responsibility implicit in the 1944 Act for producing a more coherent, open, plan, than he has so far admitted?

Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we have a responsibility to make sure that teacher supply is, according to our lights, right and that we do not permit college by college, area by area, to be filled ad hoc and the whole exercise to fail, so that we ultimately get too many or too few teachers, then I accept that. That is why I referred to Circular 7/73. That is exactly what it is about.
Some of the charges, laid primarily in The Times Higher Education Supplement and repeated in this House, have essentially one origin. We ought to be clear about this. I am concerned about the future of the staff in the colleges. I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to their problems. It is natural that they should be exceedingly concerned about their future at the moment. It is equally natural that if proposals are made affecting their colleges, which, as


they see it now, may adversely affect their future—and which perhaps do not fully meet their wishes with regard to their college—they should react by saying that the Department is proceeding by stealth and secrecy and that the Department is using a sledge-hammer and so on.
I understand this. I have every sympathy with these people. That is one of the reasons why I am exceedingly keen to proceed with this exercise on the basis of consultation, of receiving representations whether at ministerial or official level, from whoever may wish to make representations. Above all, it is why I am anxious to have the matter settled as quickly as it can be settled, consonant with getting the right answer. That is the only way in which we shall still these natural worries.
I do not propose to comment at length on the subject of Alnwick. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will not be surprised because he has given the reason. I have a meeting with the maintaining authority later this morning and it would be improper of me to deal with the argument before we meet the authority whose property the college is. I have every sympathy with many of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member. This argument can be adduced with respect to many areas of the country. Everyone thinks that his own case is unique, and that is what makes this exercise peculiarly difficult. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) made a plea that the cutback in London should not be so sharp. If it is not, some other colleges will go. When I went to Coventry recently I heard a plea that there should be expansion there. I have heard pleas that there should be an expansion of teacher education in about six areas. I cannot concede all those pleas. That is inconceivable. Every time than an hon. Gentleman makes a case for the preservation of his own college or for its expansion if it is likely to remain in the system he makes a case for the run-down of somebody else's.
We are dealing with a piece of string, not a bit of elastic. We cannot stretch it in all directions.

Mr. Beith: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, does he agree that some hon. Members have got as near as

they can to conceding that it might be desirable that the string should be stretched in a particular way? If cuts have to be imposed in, say, the North-East, they must be imposed in a slightly different way, perhaps by restricting expansion or reducing the total number in some of the other colleges rather than totally destroying one college.

Mr. Fowler: I shall be happy to consider arguments of that kind later this morning, and when I see the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. However, he takes the general point that it is impossible to make a case for expanding or keeping open one college without making a case for running down another.
The Alnwick case is not unique in another sense. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a college in the Lake District. The geographically very large County of Cumbria, with a substantial population, has only one college of education. The Northern Region as a whole is well provided with places in colleges of education. But there is a heavy concentration of those places on the eastern side of the country. Cumbria has but one. Cornwall and Suffolk have none. In my County of Shropshire the local education authority has proposed, and we have agreed, that this year shall see the last intake to Radbrooke College. That will leave Shropshire with no college of education.
In my constituency I have a town, rather larger than Alnwick, which will ultimately be the size of Leicester. The hon. Gentleman referred to Oxford. What about a town the size of Leicester with no higher education? These problems are not unique. They affect many parts of the country and many constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not accept that we can move quickly to an all-graduate teaching profession. I do not accept that we can move to an all-graduate teaching profession tomorrow; neither does anyone else. But both the Government and the Conservative Party are firmly committed to the proposition that we shall move as rapidly as possible to an all-graduate teaching profession. We should be in dire trouble with our teaching force if we were to renege on that commitment, even to the extent of saying that we can exclude the output of one or two colleges.
The hon. Gentleman asked, regarding the development of the teaching profession, whether it was the Government's aim to improve standards. I can assure him that it is our aim, and if he has heard my right hon. Friend speak on this subject in the House he will know that we have committed ourselves to a reduction of class sizes to a maximum of 30, in the old-fashioned language we would normally use to refer to the teacher-pupil ratio, in both the primary and the secondary sectors.
I come to one of the major points I want to make about the factors which determine our policy. The hon. Gentleman referred to the projections which show a declining population in the schools. The school population, on present projections, will reach its peak in 1976 and thereafter will begin to decline very rapidly.
The birth rate continues not simply to decline but to plummet. I am not predicting that that will continue, but I can operate only on the basis of predictions showing that that is happening. As from about 1976 smaller age groups will begin to work through the secondary sector. Then there will be a sharp drop in school population. Even keeping the target of 510,000 teachers set by the previous Government, that means that we can reckon on improving standards by 1981 to a much greater extent than was originally planned.
That is one of the major factors to be taken into account in planning the future of the colleges. Apart from what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested at the beginning of his contribution, it makes it imperative to introduce the colleges to the general system of further and higher education. Unless we do, we shall never have the flexibility that will allow us to expand or contract teacher education to meet fluctuations in the birth rate. At the same time, wastage rates from the profession are at a low level. Further study undertaken partly on behalf of the Department suggests that there will be a larger number of married women returners coming into teaching at the end of the decade than we have been accustomed to.
If we add all those factors together, it is clear that the number of initial training places that we are likely to need by

the end of this decade will be lower rather than higher than the figure shown in the 1972 White Paper. It is in that national context that I ask hon. Members to consider individual proposals which show a run-down of teacher education places, or even a proposal for the closure of a college.
The trend of those who are able and willing to profit from higher education—to use the Robbins' phrase—is also behaving oddly. The proportion of the age group able and willing to benefit from higher education is not increasing as rapidly as we thought it would three or four years ago. That points to a smaller number of places in higher education. I am not telling the House anything new. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that last January. I am not predicting that that will prove to be so, because the trend may turn up.
In looking at the future of the colleges in the next few years, an additional constraint is then that we are talking about a system which is not expanding quite so rapidly as we thought it would. The pace of expansion will be much slower, and it is, therefore, more difficult for colleges to fit in and diversify unless they are sizeable units when they enter the system of further and higher education. We cannot hope to put into the system a small teacher education unit on the understanding that with the overall expansion of the system within a few years that unit will be able to diversify naturally and with little difficulty.
I turn now to higher education courses. The introduction of modular courses of teacher education and general higher education necessitates much wider diversification within institutions and, therefore, the institutions must be of greater size at the moment of entry to the general system than we have been accustomed to with mono-technic institutions, with courses not based on the modular principle. This helps to determine our attitudes. Against that background we look at individual proposals.
We have reached a point in our discussions with the Inner London Education Authority where, as between the authority and ourselves as opposed to some of the colleges, only one college remains at issue.
In general we are clear on what should be done in London. In essence the plan is the ILEA's. When the ILEA submitted its plan to us, one of my officials replied to the Chief Education Officer. The dear old Times Educational Supplement described that reply as a "blockbuster" Well, I suppose it is in terms of size since it is a substantial document, but London is a substantial place with many substantial colleges, so it was reasonable that it should be a bulky document. But in terms of language—and I will not read it to the House since it is so long—it is a moderate document indeed.
What it said was that with regard to the maintained colleges in London, the future of three of them was accepted as the authority had proposed, the future of another three was accepted, with one or two minor qualifications, and the future of the remaining three we would wish to discuss further. I do not think that situation is too bad. I do not think it can be said to be a bulldozing or block-busting attitude.
I was asked specifically about Battersea College. I shall look at that question again. I was aware of the suggestion that Battersea should run down its training of primary teachers. The primary reason for that suggestion was that the requirement for primary teachers is beginning to diminish rapidly. We have to cut back somewhere in respect of primary teaching.
As for the Philippa Fawcett and Furze-down Colleges, all that was suggested was that the future of a merged institution would not be as clear on the ILEA proposal as it would be if some vocational element could be added to that merged institution. I should like to quote from the letter to ILEA:
We doubt whether in the circumstances of Central London the development of these two colleges as liberal arts colleges would be viable and would like further consideration to be given to the possibility of their amalgamating…".
The letter refers to amalgamation with either a named college of FE or with a neighbouring institution of FE. There was no suggestion that either institution should close. That seems to be very mild indeed.
With regard to London, as with the rest of the country, I suggest that our

policy has been proceeding on the basis of discussion with the authorities and with the colleges, and in general by agreement. On the other hand, I would not pretend that all the London colleges will be happy with what is agreed, whether the proposal originates from ourselves or from the authority. I hope that with good will we can continue the amalgamation of colleges of education with the general system of further and higher education.
I should like to end on a personal note. I have long believed—long before James, long before the White Paper—that it was not in the best interests of teacher education that it be continued in monotechnic institutions divorced from the mainstream of higher education. I believe that two or three years from now we shall have the outlines of a system which will stand us in very much better stead as we leap towards the twenty-first century than did the system of further and higher education we knew in the past.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Jessel.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not quite extraordinarily ill-mannered and highly discourteous to you and to my Department that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who purports to exhibit such interest in matters of this character, should deem it inappropriate to give notice either to you or to me that he had no intention of being here for a debate on an important issue like Maplin?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know why the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is not here. I envy him.

Orders of the Day — AIRPORTS POLICY

8.30 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I am disappointed that my hon. Friends the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), who might have joined him are not here, as was planned, to precede this debate on a national airports policy with a debate on the future of Maplin and our airports policy now that the Government have made their decision about Maplin. I wanted to avoid a contribution on the subject of Maplin


because it was my hope that the Under-Secretary would give valuable guidance and a statement before I gave my own contribution on a national airports policy.
Looking at Britain as a whole and at inter-continental and internal air transport, I have always visualised the possibility of two or three 24-hour international airports in Great Britain. If those people who advised Roskill, his successors and the previous Government had felt that a scheme such as Maplin was worthy of the national expenditure involved, I would have supported it wholeheartedly. Having landed at Charles de Gaulle, Roissy, in Paris recently, I regret that we have been talking for 10 years and have not the show place which the French now have at Roissy.
The pattern of civil aviation and the rôle of air transport is now uncertain, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most telling factor in the years to come—and we see it already in the drop in the growth of air transport, both passenger and freights—is the impact of the high cost of aviation fuel, rather than the energy crisis as such. When we consider the various modes of transport, it must be remembered that the fuel cost per passenger mile in the case of aviation is very high. The cheapest form of transport is probably the passenger bus. That is followed by the diesel train, with the private car being fairly expensive in terms of cost and fuel consumption. Therefore, it is right that Governments, including this one, should look at the pattern of air transport in the years to come.
Air transport will continue for the intercontinental routes and no doubt will expand. Perhaps the biggest breakthrough has been the Boeing 747 Jumbo, closely followed by the DC 10 and the Tri-Star. There are on the drawing board concepts of 600, 700 and 800 seaters. In my view, the Government were right to endorse the supersonic jet, because the Concorde will move people silently over great distances, at supersonic speeds.
On the other side of the argument, I found most fascinating a visit with the Science and Technology Committee of the Western European Union to the Canadian Transport Commission, which sent me the papers on an experiment with the de Havilland Otter on the STOL con-

cept between Montreal and Ottawa. The distance between Montreal and Ottawa is not very great. By car the journey could be done in one and a half to two hours. I managed to compare that with the airline journey. But the complexity of running a STOL service between scheduled airline routes, allowing for low visibility and a pad in Montreal where the automatic flight plan has to twine in and out of skyscrapers and high buildings is ambitious and fascinating. But the proof of this type of scheduled service will be the frequency of service and the reliability and ability of a small plane to have such navigational equipment that will allow it to enter Montreal, in particular, in poor weather conditions.
On this side of the picture, after discussions with SBAC on the STOL and VTOL future, I must say that five years ago I thought that downtown landing strips for STOL, if not VTOL, were a distinct possibility.
The economics of transport in terms of both time and money are the time and money spent from front door, the point of origin, to the doorstep, the point of definition of a journey. This problem has not been resolved completely, and the future of STOL is still to be defined.
Last summer the council of the Science and Technology Committee of the Western European Union held a seminar in Paris to which were invited members of that committee, of which I was a member, the leaders and experts of aircraft manufacturers, the suppliers of components and equipment, the airline operators, traffic control and airport managers, and the consumer interest was well represented if not by other bodies, certainly by the politicians present.
I hope that a European conference of this type will be instigated by the Western European Union in the not too distant future. There were representatives from Her Majesty's Government at the meeting. I found it stimulating to hear the papers, to read them subsequently, and to take part in the discussion. The Government should have had a report on some of the main conclusions which certainly impinged on me.
The air space over Europe and certainly over this country is over-congested and overcrowded. Therefore, there is a need for fewer flights on the main air


routes. This obviously supports the idea of larger aircraft.
Perhaps the most fascinating discussion concerned the economies of airport operation. As the number of planes landing and taking off increases, the services that have to be supplied and the capital costs are spread over more passengers and journeys, and so the cost of airport facilities comes down the more flights that are handled per day. Therefore, too many medium to small size airports carried by a nation can prove too costly.
The next problem is passenger convenience. That means flexibility in the numbers of flights from one airport to the most important destinations. That is probably why Heathrow, having grown so large, being the largest airport in Europe at present, is so popular. If, because of congestion or one flight delay, the main flight is missed, there is another that can be caught. Therefor in one respect passenger convenience favours a busy airport, whether it be O'Hara in Chicago, Heathrow or Orly. But the busy airport has a problem of bottlenecks in passenger handling and the time taken to change aircraft at Heathrow is abysmal.
I should reveal my vested interest at this stage. I live in the north of England. I find it very inconvenient to leave my home with4¼ hours to take-off at Heathrow as against 2¼ hours at Manchester. That is the transport pattern that the citizens of Sheffield must consider.
There is a changing pattern in flying. The present Minister for Transport the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and I were at Transpo 72 in Washington two summers ago. The United States Minister of Transport and his officials tried to put over to us that 40 miles was the economic distance for flying. It could well be in certain circumstances.
There is the example of the electrification of the Manchester to London main British Rail line which has taken a large number of flights off that 180-mile link from London to Manchester. Glasgow now has the benefit of a much faster electrified rail service and already passengers are contemplating the very attractive alternative of the faster train journey. The Channel Tunnel could well go ahead and I fancy that two and a half or three hours to Paris or Brussels and

five hours to other destinations will be very much more attractive than aviation, especially when the high speed diesel train and the advanced passenger train become a reality.
The energy crisis, with the high cost of aviation fuels and the development of atomic energy and other sources of power, will make the electrified railway so much more economic that I suspect that not only will the 400-mile journey be attractive if there are adequate railway routes but possibly the 800-mile route will come into its own. I make that prediction following the meetings I have attended in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. It is vital that we have some comment on the sense or otherwise of this point of view.
This poses a question. I posed this question at the Western European Union conference last summer in Paris. Accepting the need for nations to make the best use of their assets in transport, including air transport, is it better to have a large number of small airports developing feeder line services—airbus services; or "the milk round" as it is sometimes described in Australia—or is it better in the national and public interest to have a smaller number of larger airports and develop good land communication by road or rail to and from these airports—by "road" I mean public transport in the form of the bus—to link centres of population, with a few airports providing a large number of flights to main destinations each day?
This question was not answered at the seminar, because various vested interests are not prepared to provide the answer. It is only the trustee of the public interest, namely, those advising government, that can begin to answer this thorny question.
I had to give a local broadcast on Radio Sheffield and a report to a local newspaper reporter. The reporter asked me, "Mr. Osborn, what is your view?" Do you think there should be one airport for the North of England or a large number of smaller airports?" I said, "My feeling is that a few airports with good services well scattered over Britain might well be the answer. A detailed decision—it is only a hunch on my part—must be backed up by a study and survey, and the Government must do this, in the national interest." The reply from the


reporter somewhat shocked me. He said: "Mr. Osborn, your constituents cannot wait for a survey or a detailed decision. They want an answer to this question tomorrow".
The Government should realise that the people of this country do not want delayed decision after delayed decision. There has been 10 years of muddle over Foulness, Maplin, and Stanstead, and to reach no decision is a terrrible example of procrastination. I am not blaming only the present Government. In the past decisions have been made and countermanded far too rapidly.
There are other criteria besides economics to be considered. One of the sessions at the seminar which I have mentioned was chaired by Mr. David Nicholson, chairman of British Airways. This seminar highlighted the cost of a small air strip, with adequate regard for safety and the servicing of small aircraft, as against a larger airport. He said that the Manchester to Milan journey could be used as an example of a typical European inter-city link in this connection. The fact that I live so near to Manchester gave rise to a most interesting discussion.
There are various ways for a Member of Parliament or a businessman, to travel from his home to London. He can travel by Rolls-Royce, second-class rail, or by minicar. It is surely incumbent on the Government not to provide a stereotyped answer to proposals for airport development. Feeder line services and STOL have a future where land communications across country are poor. Airlines must be free to find demand and exploit the market. If we are to develop a service with STOL we must ensure that it is reliable in snow, fog and other bad weather conditions.
To return to the main subject of the debate, I welcomed the publication in 1972 by the Civil Aviation Authority of the document "Airport Planning: an Approach on a National Basis." In the first paragraph of the document part of the Civil Aviation Act 1972 is referred to, in relation to the duty of the CAA:
to consider what aerodromes are in its opinion likely to be required from time to time in the United Kingdom in addition to or in place of or by way of alteration of existing aerodromes; and … to make recom-

mendations to the Secretary of State arising out of its consideration …
The document also states:
The Policy Guidance places on the Authority the responsibility to advise as to the provision and development of aerodromes to match the development of air services and general aviation. Paragraph 21 of the Guidance charges the Authority in particular to examine the economics and organisation of air services in the Scottish Highlands and Islands and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, if possible by March 21, 1974.
I have been unable to ascertain whether this has been done and whether the House and country can yet have the benefit of it.
The fourth paragraph of the documents refers to the problem of
how to avoid overloading the study with so much detail that it becomes a five-year project, while at the same time avoiding too much approximation and abstraction.
It also mentions the problem of
the number of alternative airport systems to be forecast and evaluated.
The level of precision to be adopted for the study will present difficulties to those who carry it out.
I have had the advantage of reading annual reports of the British Airports Authority and the CAA, which provide useful material. The reports show a general evasion of issues involving strategy for the future. The latest figures in the reports show that Heathrow airport handles 20 million passengers and 268,000 movements; Gatwick handles 6 million passengers and 75,000 movements; Luton handles 3 million passengers and 30,000 movements, while the passengers figure for Manchester is lower —2,500,000—but the movements figure is 48,000. The comparison of Luton and Manchester is interesting. But all this means that 81 per cent. of traffic in and out of Britain goes through the airports of London.
I am appalled that statistics for 10 years show that passengers want to come to London and the congested Southeast. One reason is that flexibility and the chance of changing aircraft force people to come here. Hotels have now been built to attract people stuck for the night. America has a national policy of diffusion. Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco are large international airports, along with Kennedy, which also has to compete with New Jersey and La


Guardia. Had flexibility and frequency of flights been available at two intercontinental airports at least outside London in the last 10 years, those statistics would have been proved a nonsense.
All Governments must listen to their experts, so, as a member of Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, I was interested to have drawn to my attention in the last 18 months the work of a committee set up in 1961, when I was involved with the British Associated Chambers of Commerce, to draw up a national plan on airports. The ABCC has produced a worthwhile publication, a "National Plan for Airports", which Ministers' advisers, airlines and aircraft manufacturers could with confidence take note.
On the philosophy of the airports plan, it says:
This report is intended to set out a progressive scale of priorities for developing the nation's airports. It proposes a rolling programme for development; any detailed plan imposed on a once-for-all basis regardless of shifting economic and technological circumstances would deny the dynamic nature of the air industry itself. In addition it identifies individual schemes which do not merit early priority… Similarly we do not believe that any airport development can be sensibly isolated, either from considerations of an overall national and European strategy, or from the simultaneous development of surface transport links to its catchment area.
I have been most impressed with these recommendations.
The Government can take heart from one part of the Report.
Since the Government originally declared itself in favour of the minority Roskill verdict to build a major airport on the Maplin Sands, there have been important changes in aircraft technology which fundamentally affect the reasoning involved.
That backs the Government's view.
The environmental nuisance caused by aircraft noise, while still a problem, will be cured by aircraft designers.
That is the 64,000 dollar question. Will aircraft in general in 20 years' time be sufficiently quiet to permit 24-hour flying in and out of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton? if not, there is no international airport near London which will, and the ultimate yardstick in this respect will be with more reasonable environmental considerations than we are prepared to accept in 1974.
The report says:
In the meantime, there is ample justification for making use of existing provisions for

soundproofing of premises in the worst hit cases… The growth in aircraft size slows down the growth in the number of aircraft movements.
That is a vital change.
It goes on:
v. Between them the conclusions in items ii to iv above would render obsolete the arguments in favour, both of Maplin, and of a third airport for London generally. They do not argue against improving and extending the ground handling facilities of Heathrow and Gatwick to cope with growing traffic, within the context of an overall national airports plan …
vii. Maplin has at least revealed the extent of public funds available for airport development …
viii. There are too many airports outside London competing with one another for higher status.
Manchester is a municipal airport. There are small townships which are using ratepayers' money and expecting grants from the Government to develop airport facilities that the nation does not want.
Conclusion No. x is:
If the number of top-rank airports is to be severely restricted, their geographical spacing must be decided with the utmost care.
Motorway and trunk networks, both existing and planned are an essential feature in the task of siting Britain's major airports.
Emphasis is placed on the value of the advanced passenger train. It is also suggested that first it is necessary to decide the strategic importance of an airport, and then construct runways to fit. There tends to be a decision to make the runways without considering the strategic importance of the airport.
Conclusion No. xviii is:
Our first preference for Northern England is to enlarge Manchester Airport and equip it with comprehensive surface access facilities especially from the other major cities of the North.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Manchester may be all right for Sheffield, but it is not a suitable airport for the people living in North Yorkshire and the West Riding, or for the large business community.

Mr. Osborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Yeadon, and possibly to Thorne Waste, of which I shall be speaking. I thank him for his interest in the debate.
At least the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has provided a


working document based on the views of industrialists as to what the nation might require. There is another survey produced for the Civil Aviation Authority by Metra Consulting, the Central England Airport Study, a summary which makes a number of recommendations concentrating on two aspects. These recommendations rather overlap and conflict with each other, but they are a basis of discussion for those most interested.
There is a suggestion of a North Cheshire airport. Emphasis is laid on the importance of Manchester-Liverpool, and there is the East Midlands airport. The conclusion is:
If it were to be felt that no new airport would be acceptable within the region, then the best solution would be to concentrate services on Manchester and East Midlands or, alternatively, on Liverpool and East Midlands. This would involve a cost penalty of approximately £15 million.
It does not help the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), who put his views on the North Yorkshire problem.
I have tried to assess the latest views of the Yorkshire and Humberside Planning Council. It points out that until Manchester-Ringway is saturated that would be adequate as an inter-continental airport, but once it is saturated, which is now estimated to be no earlier than 1990, although in the strategy the council said in the early 1980s, there would be a need for a new intercontinental airport, and that this should be east of the Pennines. For that reason the Yorkshire and Humberside Planning Council welcomed the reservation of the old West Riding County Council of Thorne Waste. Newspaper comment says that this may have the same trouble with birds as Maplin.
It is the East Yorkshire-Lincolnshire area, which is pre-empted for the Ministry of Defence. If a major airport is to be developed east of the Pennines, the air marshals and others will have to give up some of the space they regard as sacrosanct. This the Government must not run away from. As for regional and European airports the council has stated that there is a case on economic planning grounds for the temporary extension of the new runway at Yeadon.
Fourthly, since then Lindsey, subsequently succeeded by Humberside County,

have supported the building of an airport at Kirmington. It is felt that this should be encouraged for European and domestic flights.
This is the information I have been able to obtain from the planning council. Some 10 years ago as a citizen of Sheffield I wanted to see what is now being developed at Donnington located at Todwick near Sheffield. Ten to 15 years ago a progressive local authority could have established an airport on a motorway link east of the Pennines. If that airport were to go ahead now not only the hon. Member for Hallam but the hon. Members for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) would be plagued by constituents not wanting the airport near their homes.
It is vital that if there is to be an airport there must be good public transport by road and rail links. If flights are to come into Manchester (Ringway) or, alternatively, Donnington, there is the need for good motorway services. The road journey across the Pennines from Sheffield to Manchester is appalling and it seems that a low priority for this type of project will continue to render it appalling for some time to come. Therefore, international communications must be backed up by a fresh consideration of the importance of a Manchester-Sheffield motorway and access to this airport.
The airline cost per passenger mile in the United States is half what it is in this country. The danger in Europe and Britain is that we shall establish a multitude of routes and a multitude of airports which are under-used, and for that reason the Government must intervene and determine priorities. If the taxpayer through the Government does not pay for airports the local ratepayer through the local authorities will, and ratepayers are in no mood to subsidise air transport for others at the present time.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended, but I have had to cover the aspects concerned with Maplin. What reports have the Government received from the CAA and what conclusions have been reached? Whatever we consider to be the problem, it must not be considered in isolation from other countries, particularly our friends in Europe. I hope


that the Government will give the western European Union Science and Technology Committee every encouragement to resume the dialogue it has started with all interested in air transport and transport so that the land and air problems of Britain and the rest of Europe can be looked at jointly.
The Committee is coming to Farnborough so that the Government may have a suitable opportunity to present the British case if they can reach a conclusion by then. The plan must be dynamic. The Government must state which developments they wish to subsidise and which they must discourage in order to rationalise air transport in Britain and the number of under-used airports. There is a need for more information on the change which increased aircraft size and, above all, the development of the new generation of jet engines will have on air transport. It must be determined whether it is reasonable to have 24-hour flying at Manchester, or whether Manchester is too densely populated under the flight path for that purpose. That should determine the priority.
It is necessary to know whether in 20 years' time, with the new generation of jet engines, it is possible for Heathrow to be open 24 hours a day. It is right that we should ask the Government to review their overall strategy. I very much hope that they will agree to produce a White Paper, or if not a Green Paper, to discuss these many issues.
There are a number of schemes. I could have referred to the anomaly of three major airports in Scotland. That is an absolute nonsense whatever people in Edinburgh and Glasgow may say. I have been impressed by the ABCC's review of the Severnside scheme involving Cardiff, Bristol and the South West of England. That could reach international proportions. But if one Government are to approve Maplin and another Government reject it, Government must interest themselves in the air transport pattern covering Britain as a whole. I welcome this opportunity of raising this matter today.

9.6 a.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: Without being presumptuous I should like to say that my hon. Friend the Member for

Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has performed a most valuable function in raising this matter and introducing it in such a manner. I believe that he said that a number of smaller airports spread around the country may well be the answer. That is one of a number of questions which he posed but did not attempt to answer. I understand that. I suppose that he has left the answering to the Minister.
I would enter a word of gentle caution. I hope that my hon. Friend will take it in that way. I believe that future developments in aviation may prove to be as inexplicable and unforeseeable as some of those that have occurred in the past 20 years. Anyone reviewing the past 20 years must acknowledge that many of the tendencies and trends have been different from those that might have been anticipated in 1950.
I give my hon. Friend one or two examples. I well recall 20 years or more ago going to an airport to fly a car overseas. At that time had anyone asked any of us which would be the quicker growth industry—namely, flying cars overseas or taking them by sea ferry—we would probably have said that it would be flying them overseas. In the past 20 years the business of air ferries has virtually disappeared while the business of sea ferries has grown enormously.
I do not think that that trend could have been foreseen at the time. Similarly I suppose the growth of package holidays overseas has exceeded the expectations of anyone. The growth of regular scheduled flights in this country has on the whole probably been less than some might have expected.
Another recent example with which my hon. Friend will be well acquainted is the way in which laudably, and in the long term I hope beneficially, British Rail have been hitting back. Not many years ago most of our colleagues who came from Manchester and South Lancashire to the House travelled by air. Since British Rail have introduced the splendid electrified rail service to Manchester very few of them travel by air. That is true of the members of the general public. Once again we have a development which could hardly have been foreseen even comparatively recently.
My hon. Friend attempted to draw some useful parallels between this country and


others, including the United States. I recognise that in many areas the American experience is valuable to us. However, I have a feeling that ill aviation that may not be so owing to the different size of the United States and owing to the enormously different spread of the population in the two countries.

Mr. Osborn: But does not my hon. Friend agree that if we look at civil airline operations on a European scale we do compare with the United States. If we look at our operations as a small island country, I accept that we cannot compare ourselves with the United States. If we look at ourselves as part of a European concept—the success of the airbus being an example—then my hon. Friend's point is not so valid.

Sir R. Gower: My hon. Friend would probably be right were it not for the fact that Europe is Europe and America is America, and Europe for the foreseeable future is not likely to be a unified political whole, which poses very serious differences between Europe and the United States. For example, it is inconceivable in present-day terms that there should not be an Air France, but as far as I know there is no such pressure to have an "Air Utah". I hope my hon. Friend takes the point.
Similarly, my hon. Friend mentioned the separate international airports at Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. But he was talking there about airports thousands of miles apart. That is hardly so in the case of Manchester and Sheffield. The geographical differences are so enormous in North America that we must be somewhat cautious in making too simple a comparison with the United States.
My hon. Friend stressed the need for long-term and careful Government thinking and for a general inquiry into these matters, and I support him wholeheartedly in that. I only utter a word of caution. It is possible with the best evidence in the world to get forecasts radically wrong. I have explained how conclusions reached 20 years ago have proved completely fallacious since. It was no fault of those who compiled those forecasts. There were simply unforeseen developments.
My hon. Friend himself referred to one of these unforeseen developments—the revival, which I hope will be long term, of the railways. The inter-city services now offer something which many people find preferable to any other form of transport. Perhaps we may follow the experience of the French. People there, for example, put their cars on the train at Boulogne or Paris and go right through to Milan, Munich or Lyons. It is now quite a popular thing to do.
I turn now to what may seem to be a more parochial matter, but my hon. Friend said that we want regional development of aviation. I want to call the Minister's attention to a perhaps understandable but nevertheless extraordinary neglect of all kinds of expenditure on and development of civil aviation throughout the whole of Wales in the last 30 years. I cannot blame any particular Government for it, but the situation has no comparison or parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
There are special geographical and other reasons and I concede that it is difficult to have a viable, fairly considerable air service in the North-West of Wales owing to the scattered nature of the population, which might not be large enough or concentrated enough to support effectively and economically any major air services. There is also the proximity of much of North Wales to Manchester.
In the sense of developing any internal service from the airport at Rhoose, near Cardiff, we have been hampered over the years by the excellence of the main rail communication between most of eastern South Wales and London and, indeed, the useful communication by road and rail between east South Wales and mid-South Wales and the Midlands. Nevertheless, I repeat that the neglect has been extraordinary. There has been hardly any national public expenditure on civil aviation in the whole of the Principality. Cardiff airport owes its existence first to the initiative of the former local authority at Cardiff, then to private initiative, and then to the initiative of the former Glamorgan County Council, which took it over some while ago.
At considerable expense, which has been borne predominantly by the ratepayers of Glamorgan, this airport has now been modernised. New terminal buildings


have been provided. Runways have been extended. It is now a far better equipped airport than could have been expected even a few years ago. It is now capable of taking much larger aircraft. There has been a substantial growth in its holiday business. That has been the chief growth. There has been some growth recently in freight.
The burden of expenditure, however, which formerly fell on Glamorgan County Council, is now being borne by a consortium of the three counties of South Glamorgan, Mid-Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. The Government and their predecessors have so far neglected to put anything into civil aviation in Wales which is at all commensurate with what they have expected in other parts of the United Kingdom. This sort of expenditure in Wales has been almost negligible. The consortium has approached the Government in that context and asked for some reasonable help.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we met representatives of the consortium only a couple of weeks ago. They made further representations in writing. What it comes to is whether the Government are prepared to provide retrospective aid to meet their particular problems.

Sir R. Gower: I shall naturally not press the Minister to comment on that meeting. Some deliberation will be necessary to consider the long term before a final decision can be made about that.
During recent years, however, the former Glamorgan County Council, other Members of Parliament and myself pressed the Government's predecessors, of both parties, to contribute towards the expenditure. If the consortium is now asking for retrospective help it is because the previous Conservative Government and their Labour predecessors neglected to give any such help.
I can fairly say that the expenditure from central Government on this airport, or on any airport or civil aviation amenity in Wales, has been on a deplorably low scale. I do not blame the Under-Secretary or his colleagues for that. It is a matter of history. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam would have said that this airport should have been

developed as it was is another argument. However, it now provides a facility which is far better than that of any adjacent airport.
The facilities are significantly better than in such places as Bristol. It would mean great expenditure at Bristol to reproduce those facilities today. The provision of such facilities has been a great burden and I hope that the Government will look at this against the background of the years of neglect, by all Governments, of civil aviation in the Principality. Whatever any Government does for civil aviation in Wales in the next few years will have been paid for by the money which previous Governments failed to put into the industry in the past.
Vast sums of money have been expended at airports in England, Scotland and indeed in Northern Ireland. These places have attracted considerable help from central Government. That is why I make this special plea. I know that the Minister is acquainted with what has been put forward by the consortium, through correspondence and in meetings.
I very much support the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend. I have uttered these cautionary words because I believe that this is a dynamic industry the dynamic growth of which can sometimes cause it to go off in different directions. That will continue to be the future of aviation development.
The situation is complicated by the fact that other forms of transport are now hitting back. They are all, rightly, seeking to make themselves hyper-efficient. Expenditure on road and rail has an effect on internal aviation services. It would be wrong, however, to say that such developments should constitute a reason for airports ceasing to increase international traffic. That would mean a concentration of all international departures on one or two airports in the South of England, which would be found to be objectionable to many parts of the country.
My hon. Friend has performed an extremely valuable service in posing these pertinent questions. I am sure that he does not expect the Minister to give a series of off-the-cuff answers. If the Minister can assure me that this is the sort of approach which the Government will undertake, we shall have achieved something valuable.

9.24 a.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I intervened briefly as one who has the Leeds-Bradford Airport within his constituency. It has been most valuable to have this subject raised today. I appreciate that in the preceding discussion much stress has been laid on the need for further study. Reference was made to the Central England Airport Study. Obviously this is planning of a long-term nature about which the Government and the aviation authority must be concerned.
We have a problem in my area. As we have seen from an earlier debate about motorway policy, acute anxiety can be expressed by a resident population. The Leeds-Bradford Airport has aroused extreme anxiety among my constituents and has resulted in a ministerial inquiry rejecting previous proposals on environmental grounds.
It is therefore necessary that, whatever steps the Minister takes, he does so in the knowledge that one of his major objectives must be to try to allay public concern over the development of airports. In my discussion with the Department I was much interested to learn from the Minister that discussions on the reduction of aero-engine noise was a high Government priority. This is a prerequisite to gaining public sympathy for a regional airport policy.
Secondly, the Central England Aircraft Study, which recommended the removal of a number of airports, one at least of which has had a vast sum spent on it recently, was conducted prior to the Government's decision on Maplin. Therefore, the consequences of the decision have not been fully assessed. I wrote to the Minister about the Leeds-Bradford airport, and in his reply he said:
I should like to see as much traffic transferred to the regions as possible both to relieve the pressure on the South East and to help in the development of other regions. I have therefore asked my officials to consider the regional implications in greater depth.
That is desirable and valuable, and I welcome it. But I lay stress on the fact that great anxiety will be created by the transfer of air traffic to regional airports unless we can safeguard the environmental consequences.
Thirdly, one of the problems about regional airport development is that it falls between the local authority, the Civil

Aviation Authority and the Government. With the new structure of local authorities bringing new brooms in many places, it is vitally important that the Government should give a strong and determined lead. I do not mean that they should ride roughshod over local opinion—far from it—but if local authorities—and there are several such cases—do not agree about a suitable regional airport policy and if they form consortia, as they often do, to run airports, it is important that the Government should give a lead to the local authorities on the decisions which should be made, in relation not only to the regional implications but to the country as a whole. Airports represent a major capital investment which belongs to the nation and the first priority of the Government must be to ensure that they are effectively utilised.
In the main, airports in the North, such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds-Bradford, are in areas of high density population. It is therefore vital that we ensure that the people on the ground are given the greatest possible consideration in the planning discussions. If the Minister can assure us about aircraft noise on the ground and the realisation of an effective regional policy as a substitute for Maplin, and if he can say that the threats which people living near regional airports believe they are under will be abated, he will gain sympathy for an active regional airport policy.

9.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I express to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) my thanks for initiating this debate because it gives me an opportunity to give the Government's attitude to the matters he has raised. I was fascinated to hear of his international peregrinations, which have given the House some useful experience, and we shall take carefully into account his observations about the conference which he attended, and the experience at Montreal and Charles de Gaulle.
I share the hon. Gentleman's misgiving that the debate is incomplete in that it would have been extremely valuable if the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) had spoken about Maplin to enable me to make some observations on it so that his speech could have been seen


in a much wider and national context. But it is not my fault that Hamlet appears without the Prince. Having stayed in the House all night, together with my officials, I am hardly in the mood to confer any princedoms on the hon. Gentleman, who chose not to give notice that he did not propose to be here. I find that rather extraordinary on a matter about which he has purported to show great interest on behalf of his constituents, who should, I think, feel sorely let down by his failure to be present.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has raised several important points, and I will do my best to answer as many of them as I can. He made rather a long speech, and I do not intend to speak for as long as he did. I must preface my remarks in reply to his speech by one or two pertinent observations about our Maplin review.
It is abundantly plain to all, except to those who are most obtuse about this and are established proponents of the Maplin proposals, that fresh circumstances have developed since the Roskill Report in 1971. The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) developed that theme, although he took it further back in history. The developments include advances in technology, inflation, increased fuel prices, the relative scarcity of fuel and the downturn in passenger travel, in particular that of the package tour business. All those factors have made serious inroads into the thinking about Maplin. The observation of Sir Peter Masefield contained in a booklet written by several people about the lessons of Maplin has a great deal of relevance. He said:
In the new circumstances it would be economically disastrous and politically inept to attempt to solve tomorrow's problems by building yesterday's airport.
That is a substantial point which is reflected in the Government's review.
We have undertaken a considerable amount of work to provide the basic information against which a national airports policy can be developed. They include the review of the Maplin proposal and several comprehensive regional studies which are being carried out under the CAA—to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He asked why we had not had the reports. Not all the work has been completed and we are now embarking on

a consultative process on the way in which London air traffic should be handled up to 1990, following the decision to abandon Maplin. We hope to receive the advice of the CAA on these regional studies before the end of the year. A highly significant remark was made by the hon. Gentleman, that the regional studies were undertaken before the Maplin review took place.

Mr. John H. Osborn: A target of March 1974 was set by the previous Government. Admittedly, the scene is a changing one, but information on the future timetable would be helpful to the House and the country.

Mr. Davis: It is difficult for me to give that timetable because of the impact of the sudden change in policy which has taken place. It is a matter for the CAA. I assure the hon. Gentleman that these matters are being treated expeditiously. The Government and the CAA are not anxious to see a long deferral of decision-making in this area. The hon. Gentleman himself objected to some of his constituents arguing that decisions should be taken tomorrow. I cannot promise that, but the argument for dealing with these matters with a measure of expedition is well taken. It would be folly to rush into decision making because of the uncertainties that exist bearing in mind the difficulties of prediction. Having made that reservation, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not delay unnecessarily in making important national decisions on these vital matters.
As the House will know, and apart from the major national airports, it has been the policy of successive Governments over several years to leave the development of airports very largely to local initiative and subject to general planning considerations. The hon. Gentleman questioned that, as he questioned other things. The result has been a rather haphazard pattern of airport development. Some areas perhaps have an over-provision of airports, while others are inadequately served.
This has presented problems in three main areas. First, in many cases there has been insufficient profitability, with a airports to be operated profitably, with a consequent and onerous burden on the rates. Secondly, the most satisfactory service has not always been provided.


Where there is an over-provision of airport facilities, this could have the effect of dispersing, and therefore limiting, the range of air services available; while where the airport provisions are inadequate, passengers have had to suffer the inconvenience of travelling some distance to catch a flight. We all know the totally inadequate facilities that exist at a number of our major airports. Thirdly, I believe that the noise and other environmental considerations have not always received the attention which they deserve. On this point the hon. Gentleman and others are rightly disturbed.
For these reasons there is now a general acceptance, which has been brought out by the three participants in the debate, that we should seek a more satisfactory basis for the future development of airports. Both the Edwards Committee on the civil aviation industry, which reported in 1969, and the Roskill Commission drew attention to the lack of any airport planning policy. Those views were borne in mind when in the Civil Aviation Act 1971, the Civil Aviation Authority was given the duty of making recommendations to the Secretary of State on the aerodromes which, in its opinion, were required in the United Kingdom in addition to, or in place of, or by way of alteration to, existing aerodromes.
The CAA in its booklet "Airport Planning: an Approach on a National Basis", published in December 1972, outlined its policy on airport planning. Its views briefly was that it was not practicable to draw up a single comprehensive detailed plan for the United Kingdom, but that it would be better to proceed by a series of regional studies. That gave rise to the present studies, some of which will be available very shortly. What we have to do is to consider them together. They will provide overall advice for the Government as to the way in which our future airport planning should proceed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about STOL. I do not want to go into any detail on that, but I ask him to refer to paragraph 9.14 of the Maplin Review, where this issue is dealt with. He will see that there has been a good deal of sponsored research into this and other projects like VTOL and RTOL and a considerable amount of co-ordination with manufacturers, airlines and others in

studying the impact that new types of aircraft would have on airport planning. It is unfair to suggest that it has not been given consideration. However, the Review illustrates that it is not of direct relevance to the considerations which we had in mind for Maplin today or even by 1980. It is likely to be shown to have relevance, if it has at all, rather later than that.
The hon. Member for Barry referred to Rhoose airport. He acknowledged that it would be difficult for me, after a matter of only a couple of weeks and having received further representations only days ago, to come to any conclusion about what is a very difficult matter. We have to consider whether to give, in a quite unique situation, retrospective help where an application was not made for help. I think through a misunderstanding many years ago.
I pay tribute to those who have been responsible for the development of what is a very fine airport at Rhoose. Unhappily, it has not produced the passengers to match the facilities available, which are better than many. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not anxious to delay. We shall be making a decision. It is pathetic that it took so long before the matter was considered and that even then no decision was produced. But, now that we are in office, we are anxious to give some measure of priority to making a decision on this. But it is a difficult matter, and my right hon. Friend and I, will have to give careful thought to this consideration.
The Civil Aviation Authority is carrying out a study of the airports of South Wales and South-West England, which it hopes to finish before the end of the year. The position of Rhoose will then have to form part of that pattern.
As for Scotland, the Government are currently considering the future organisation and management of Scottish airports, and we hope that a statement will be forthcoming very shortly.
In conjunction with the CAA, my Department has just completed the Maplin Airport Review. We were concerned essentially with the provision of airport facilities in South-East England. Although the review related to the South-East, it must have much wider implications. It is extremely important that we


should not have over-provision in the South-East. However, we have to recognise that the largest proportion of international air traffic necessarily wants to find its way down to the London airports rather than to Manchester and other places.
As I said in a letter to the hon. Gentleman, I am anxious to see the development of a regional airports strategy. This is most important in our thinking. At the moment, there is a tremendous imbalance between air traffic in South-East England compared with the rest of the country. But there will always be a greater concentration of traffic at airports serving the capital than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It would be folly to run away from that proposition. We want to seek means of reducing this concentration wherever possible.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Will the Minister tell us how he relates this matter to the possibility of the Channel Tunnel and what effect the one will have on the other?

Mr. Davis: This is dealt with at some length in the review. I do not want to embark upon a discussion about the Channel Tunnel because it is not one of my responsibilities. It falls to the Department of the Environment to consider that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow that line, because it would probably take me the best part of a quarter of an hour to deploy the argument and I should be charged with trespassing upon someone else's ground, and that would be unforgiveable. I hope that from what I have said both in correspondence and in the debate, and having regard to the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend about the development of a regional airport strategy, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are very concerned about this matter.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I am disturbed by the Minister's statement about the inevitability of people wanting to come to the South-East of England. As I tried to point out, our biggest airport and its facilities have grown somewhat like Topsy. People in the regions believe that traffic can be attracted away provided that there are comparable facilities with those at Heathrow of international air-

port status in the regions. That will also help to prevent congestion which, in the view of many, is already far too great in the South-East. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the inevitability of traffic continuing to come to the capital. Other countries are getting away from that situation.

Mr. Davis: I do not accept that other countries get away from it. I think that the hon. Member for Barry presented the answer to that argument if the reference is to the United States. There are vast differences in terms of travelling areas between airports in the United States compared with our own. I am stating a fact which is inevitable—that there will be this concentration on the capital whether we like it or not—and we do not like it very much. We must try to create a balance. We must endeavour to pursue a different course. It may not be easy. We have to challenge the established views of the travelling air public. If people desire to come to London—most international travellers do—they will not be easily persuaded to go to Manchester and then travel down to London.
I do no want to appear to be in the least bit complacent about the matter. We are anxious to try to deploy more resources towards the regions and to make more active use of them. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of the CAA reviews which are taking place.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce plan. We have received the plan. We think that it is most useful. We shall certainly take the points made by the Association into account when we embrace in more detail the national airports policy that we are anxious to undertake.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about good motorway links for any new or extended airports. They are a necessary corollary to developing an airport policy. However, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to refer to this matter, because one of the curiosities of Government is that there are extraordinary divisions and this is not one of my responsibilities. Sometimes I am extremely thankful about that.
The hon. Gentleman posed a number of questions, with some of which I have already dealt. He asked whether we


looked at these problems on an international basis. That is what we do. We reflect carefully on the international experience of others. That it most important when trying to develop our own policies on a sensible and rational basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would give consideration to the committee of the WEU on these important topics. I welcome the fact that the members are to visit Farnborough. I shall be visiting there and I shall be happy to meet them and the hon. Gentleman and discuss the outstanding problems.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there could be 24-hour flying at Manchester and later at Heathrow. I am very wary of 24-hour flying. If the hon. Gentleman were to receive my postbag on noise pollution by aircraft he, too, would be very wary of it. We must try to strike a balance between the commercial needs of the airlines and the natural desire of those who live close to or under flight paths to have a reasonably peaceful life. For many such people noise is a pestilence. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) often reminds me of that, although I do not always agree with his figures.
There are competing interests between hon. Members who want noise to be controlled further and those who want airports to developed. When my right hon. Friend made his statement about the Maplin project, strong divisions of opinion emerged amongst hon. Members opposite.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I accept that noise is a pestilence. That is why I have favoured Heathrow as being, perhaps, an 18-hour day airport, unless aircraft engine noise alters its pattern. International airports, if they are to be adequate, must be prepared to operate 24 hours a day. It is almost impossible to run proper flights without this. This means that two or three airports in a country should have flight paths away from congested areas. I hope that this will be considered, in spite of the decision on the Maplin project.

Mr. Davis: It certainly will be considered. The Department's mind is not closed to any of the hon. Gentleman's

proposals. All will be considered in their place.
I emphasise the great importance that my right hon. Friend and I place upon the need to mitigate noise nuisance. My right hon. Friend made that abundantly plain in his statement. It will cost money—the retrofit exercise and the introduction of the new wide bodied aircraft. It is a very important development. There are all the other features of phasing out the older aircraft, which are principally responsible for the noise nuisance. It will cost money, but it is an infinitely better way of spending money than wasting it on the Maplin project.
I have already dealt with the major point raised by the hon. Member for Barry about Rhoose. The hon. Gentleman made a very important point about unexpected trends which underline the uncertainty of prediction. That was pointed out with emphasis in the Maplin review project.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) stressed the importance that we should attach—we do in fact attach such importance—to the needs of the population who are not an air traffic population by and large. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The hon. Gentleman questioned the place of the local authorities in making decisions about that matter. I hope that I have given him some measure of satisfaction that these needs have to be balanced against a national planning policy.
Reference was made to Yeadon in Yorkshire. I do not think that I can usefully say anything about that this morning. This is subject to considerations we will have to give attention to later when we have received the results of all the studies by the CAA.
I have done my best to answer the points which were raised. If the hon. Member thinks that I have missed out any points, no doubt he will write to me and I will reply as rapidly as possible. I hope that those hon. Members who have spoken on this subject will agree that I have shown that the Government are thinking positively about the future of our airports policy.

Orders of the Day — STATE VETERINARY SERVICE

9.55 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I hope that the seriousness of the subject which we are now debating will compensate for the unusual hour, and I assure my hon. Friends that the situation to which I shall refer is so appalling that it does not require a long speech to bring home the facts. The condition of the State Veterinary Service merits urgent consideration at any hour of the day and I am grateful for the attendance of the Minister, who has attended for the discussion of two other subjects during the night.
I first became aware of the current difficulties of the State Veterinary Service because I am privileged to have the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge in my constituency. The laboratory enjoys a world-wide reputation for its excellent work.
I became aware first of the pay difficulties, and the long-drawn-out dispute over pay and this led me, in turn, to an awareness of the serious under-recruitment at the laboratory, which has been the subject of Questions tabled by me recently. It was one short step for me from that position to see the Central Veterinary Laboratory in the wider context of the severe difficulties of the State Veterinary Service.
As recently as last November it was stated in The Veterinary Record:
The British Veterinary Association is deeply concerned about the present position of the State Veterinary Service in terms of manpower, morale and recruitment. There are serious implications for the national interest in general and for the livestock industry in particular.
Those of us who have studied this matter know that before the war pay in the service was about 40 per cent. above that in private practice, and everything was going well. But since the war the situation has altered radically and there have been reports by the Gowers Committee in 1954, the Plant Committee in 1962, and the Northumberland Committee in 1968, all of which have drawn attention to the serious under-recruitment to the State Veterinary Service, and to what the consequences would be.
It may be worthwhile to remind the House of the role of the State Veterinary

Service, which is to control animal disease existing in this country, to guard against the introduction of exotic disease and to attend to animal welfare. But to this traditional work of preventing the spread of and, eradicating, diseases has been added various new tasks. There is, for example an increase in intensive methods in agriculture and therefore a need to ensure absence of cruelty in the way animals are reared. There is also a need to ensure that veterinary medicines are safe and efficient. Membership of the EEC has increased substantially the work load of the State Veterinary Service and there has also been an increase in animal movements around the world, which has meant better facilities at Heathrow Airport—which are well below standard—and the need for other improvements related to worldwide cattle movements.
Not only has there been an increase in the work load of the State Veterinary Service, but the nature of the work has also changed. For instance, highly qualified men now have to spend much of their time inspecting swill installations on pig farms and making various checks at local cattle markets. Eighty per cent. of their time is spent taking blood samples to eradicate brucellosis.
Before I am carried away on a wave of emotion, let us consider the facts. The House was told on 10th June this year that there were 139 vacancies in a complement of 690 in the State service. It has been suggested that veterinary surgeons are leaving the service at the rate of one a week. This means that in 10 years there will not be a State service at all. In 1973 there were just two recruits.
So the work load has increased, its nature has changed, pay scales have fallen behind those in private practice, with all its perquisites, veterinarians are called out on weekends and holidays, they are liable to be posted at short notice for unspecified periods to fight epidemics, there is no worthwhile career structure and within the Agricultural Development Advisory Service non-veterinarians take decisions over the career prospects of veterinarians. The last is a matter of great concern to veterinarians themselves. Last but not least is the anomalous situation that their pay is linked to the scientists' pay scales.
The first thing we must be clear about is that there is no shortage of vets. Nearly 300 are produced by the veterinary schools every year. Higher academic qualifications are needed to get into the schools than are required for medical schools. The clear inference is that there should be an extension of the provision of veterinary schools. The problem simply is emigration. British veterinary training seems to have become a passport to good living anywhere in the world but here. In 1961, there were 692 British registered veterinarians living overseas. By 1974 the figure had risen to 1,850. Many of them are now doing Government and university work in other countries. Private practice is the other great Mecca, and the State service, regrettably, is seen as the last resort.
Added to the serious shortage is the age profile of the State service, which gives no comfort at all. The average age is 55. The profession has become full of the veterinary equivalents of Dr. Cameron, when what we want are Dr. Finlays. The arduous nature of the work is no joke for a man in his late fifties or early sixties.
The implication of this situation is terrifying for the future of our agriculture, our livestock and our own health, because of the many animal-transmitted diseases such as rabies and psittacosis, from which there have been deaths recently. Three committees have warned of the consequences and still we drift on.
Why, oh why, does there have to be a national catastrophe before we wake up and do what needs to be done? There is little confidence in the State service that we could even contain an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease if it were of 1968 proportions. The Northumberland Committee warned of this six years ago. Our only defence against such an outbreak is crossed fingers and a prayer mat bearing the words, "Let's hope that it doesn't happen here."
Rabies is spreading from Poland at the average rate of about 30 kilometres per year. It is reckoned that within a few years it will have reached the Channel. We all know what the consequences will be for this country if that disease gets into the wild life here. The public are totally unaware of this danger. In defence terms no one could suggest that we were over-

prepared in 1940, but a state of preparedness then comparable to the State Veterinary Service today would be one aeroplane and four barrage balloons. This thin white-coated line will not be able to hold.
When that happens we shall have an inquiry, urgent action and the nation will echo to the sound of scores of doors being slammed after the horses have bolted. The farming industry is not getting the service it should be from the State Veterinary Service and it is not kicking up the stink that it should be. Farmers will soon begin to take notice if the brucellosis eradication scheme collapses, as well it might, and the possibility is that it will take until 1980 before we can have a clean bill of health on brucellosis. The implications of this for the livestock exporting industry are very serious. The EEC is bringing forward measures to suggest that we shall have to combat brucella by 1978.
There used to be a tremendous spirit of pride in the State Veterinary Service, but this is long gone. There is a resentment in the service that its senior officers are taking on without resisting all the extra tasks put on it by successive Governments.
There are five ways in which we can be constructive. First, we are producing the new vets; the input into the veterinary schools is acceptable. There is competition over places and 300 vets are coming through every year. We should therefore consider a mandatory period of service in this country, or possibly even within the State Veterinary Service. I do not see why we should train people at a cost of £20,000 so that they can immediately go abroad and join the State services in Canada, New Zealand or wherever. Many countries will consider that we are being soft and foolish on this as we are on many other things. The mandatory service could be for two or three years.
Secondly, there should be a cash programme to extend the number of places in the secondary schools. We do not have to build new schools, but I am sure that we could extend the number of places for vets in the schools. Thirdly, we should consider using an auxiliary staff to do many of the tasks which do not require such highly qualified veterinarians who have to be trained at a cost


of £20,000. We can do without highly trained people spending their time inspecting pig swill installations and so on.
There is an urgent need for a proper career structure in the service and to have veterinarians in charge of the service and taking decisions that affect other veterinarians. Fifthly—and I have left it to last not because it is least important but because it is not the most important—there is the question of pay, which must be got right. We must aim for parity with the private sector. At present the State sector is about £1,000 a year behind the private sector, and while this disparity continues we must not be surprised at the gross imbalance of recruitment between the two sides.
Nothing could be more urgent than the installation of a programme along the lines I have suggested. I am grateful to hon. Members for their indulgence and the time they have allowed me to bring forward this serious matter. We are already living on borrowed time.

10.10 a.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I apologise to the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) for not having been here at the beginning of his speech. The whole House is indebted to him for raising the subject.
I had some Questions down to the Minister about the establishment of the field veterinary officers, how many there are in post and what the establishment is. The replies may be in the pipeline. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us the numbers now, as well as telling us how many are being trained and what is the future for the service.

10.11 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): With the leave of the House, may I say how much I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis).
The debate is important. I understand the constituency interests of the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton, and appreciate the way in which he has persisted in raising the matter on various occasions. I shall deal briefly with the

situation affecting the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge, and the staffing there, which the hon. Gentleman has raised several times.
The present complement of research staff, comprising qualified veterinary surgeons and research officers without veterinary qualifications, is 90. On 1st July there were 13 vacancies. I believe that that ties up with the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on 4th July. The hon. Gentleman has pursued the matter with some tenacity. The pressure he has put on the Ministry is quite justified, because of the vital importance of the service. The Ministry has had to undertake many extra tasks, and membership of the EEC adds to the responsibilities which we accept.
The vacancies among research staff must obviously affect the Laboratory's programme of work. But I am assured that all diagnostic and other services are being fully maintained as also are the more important parts of the research programme. Progress on some lines of research has been slowed down and some expansion of work—for example on Newcastle disease—has not been undertaken. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, this is unfortunate, and we are doing everything possible to effect an improvement, but it would be wrong to say that there is a "staff crisis" at the CVL. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made that suggestion, but I believe that the Surrey Herald of 12th July made such comments.
We cannot consider the situation at the CVL, Weybridge, in isolation. We must examine the wider implications of the veterinary service, as the hon. Gentleman rightly did.
In addition to the CVL, Weybridge, the Ministry has veterinary laboratories at Lasswade and Shinfield, and there are 24 veterinary investigation centres in various parts of the country. This indicates the need for established and qualified personnel to run the services. The total complement of professional staff at these establishments is 207½ and there are currently 36½ vacancies. I have yet to meet the half! Some establishments are more affected by staff difficulties than others, and are finding it difficult to cope with the demands made upon them.
I do not wish to disguise the fact that we are far from satisfied with the present


staffing position of the State Veterinary Service, nor do we want to presume that the problem is new. It has been with us for some time, and particularly since the war. Of course, that is no excuse for letting the situation continue. Over the last decade there have been difficulties with pay and organisation that have affected recruitment, and the increasingly sophisticated needs of animal health have imposed a heavy burden upon our staff. Events such as the tragic outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 1967–68 have taken their toll of an ageing staff. The hon. Gentleman was right to make reference to the number of people over 50 who are getting on. Some of us may be in that category already.
We also recognise the crises or the problems which arise from time to time. I have fresh in my memory the events of last Friday when I was notified of the 10,000 pigs now being slaughtered as a result of swine vesicular disease. We recognise that there is a shortage of qualified staff to deal with emergencies. The current number of vacancies among the professional staff of the State Veterinary Service is 141 out of a total complement of 691. That may tie up with the hon. Gentleman's figures. Over 100 of the vacancies are in the field staff. I recognise that this is a serious situation. We are able to compensate to some extent by employing temporary veterinary inspectors on a daily basis and we make the maximum use of private practitioners. However, we do not like the present state of affairs and we are taking various measures to improve it. I shall be referring to some of the measures as I proceed.
I believe that we must take the position in perspective. The manpower situation in the profession as a whole was studied by the Departmental Committee which reported in 1964. It considered that the admissions to the veterinary colleges could be regarded as adequate to provide the numbers of veterinary surgeons likely to be needed up to 1974. For most of those 10 years the committee's assessment has been pretty well near the mark.
The current shortage of veterinary surgeons was estimated by the tribunal itself to be about 500. That is a comparatively recent development due particularly to the growth of small animal practice. This is another factor. The growth of population

of domestic animals—dogs in particular—has taken its toll on the resources that are so vitally necessary.
This reported shortage and the likely future demand for veterinarians, as well as the use made by the profession of its highly trained manpower, is being considered by a committee of inquiry under Sir Michael Swann's chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the committee is expected to report before the end of the year. I am hoping that this will up-date in some ways some of the previous reports to which the hon. Gentleman made reference—for example, the Northumberland Report and the Plant Report. We should have an up-to-date assessment of the current situation.
Due to the increasing needs of the service in various ways there has been a significant expansion in the size of the profession. The output of veterinary graduates is running at about 240 a year and over the past five years the number of qualified veterinarians working in the profession in the United Kingdom has risen by about 670 or over 12 per cent. from approximately 5,400 in 1969 to 6,070 at the end of March of this year. A moderate increase in this rate of expansion can also be expected to result from proposals put forward by the universities to the University Grants Committee for the present quinquennium.
The hon. Gentleman made a reference quite rightly to pay. That, of course, is vital in many of our essential services. Pay is an important factor affecting recruitment. The pay of veterinary officers is linked with, and moves in step with, the pay of Civil Service scientists. This has been a matter which has been before the House and which has engaged the concern of both sides of the House for some time. Following the report of the Pay Board on pay, salary increases of the order of 12 per cent. have recently been announced for scientists with effect from 7th November 1973. The veterinary officers will receive similar increases, also back-dated, to November 1973. These improvements mean that the minimum of the scale for the recruitment grades of Veterinary Officers I and II has been increased respectively from £3,312 to £3,746 and from £2,616 to £2,917. A starting salary of over £4,000 may be paid to very exceptional candidates. In common with all civil servants, veterinary


officers receive additional cost of living supplements under the threshold arrangements.
The next point of importance after pay is the re-structuring of the service. Our basic aim is to improve job quality by increasing responsibility, particularly at the junior levels, and providing greater opportunities for specialisation. Sometimes people may be rather critical of the framework of the present structure within the Ministry in so far as they claim that it does not give chances of promotion and incentive which might be there and which would attract more recruits to try to get them.
Restructuring on these lines will necessarily be a long-term objective. However, we have already been able to approve a number of specialist posts at divisional veterinary officer level for new work, and we are considering others to match developments in the livestock industry. This should give veterinary officers and graduates outside the service some indication of the direction in which we are moving.
I turn now to the question of shortage of staff in the State Veterinary Service. I have already indicated the effects upon the Central Veterinary Library at Weybridge. The shortage of staff in the service means that there has to be a degree of selection in the type of work to be given priority and that some activities cannot receive as much attention as we would like.
The prevention and eradication of non-indigenous epidemic disease—foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever and so on—remain the prime consideration, and this must engage our attention for some time to come. This is why in recent months our measures to eradicate swine vesicular disease have continued to be a first call on our resources. The hon. Gentleman knows of the orders we have had to make in recent weeks for countering outbreaks in various counties of the South-West and elsewhere. So also, of course, have our precautions against importing disease into the country, either through meat or live animals, had to take high priority. Equally, first priority would have to be given to any other outbreak of a notifiable disease.
Of the wide range of other work for which the veterinary service is responsible, the brucellosis eradication programme is a major commitment, but here, although

steady progress continues to be made, we are not moving as fast as we had hoped. Other activities that do not rate as of over-riding importance have also had to be curtailed to a greater or lesser extent.
The hon. Gentleman's question on this point is well justified because this again is the price we pay for the shortage of the essential staff, and, of course, much more than that, there is the effect upon the economy when we have enormous losses and compensation to pay because of outbreaks of disease.
The State Veterinary Service has, of course, always looked to veterinary surgeons in private practice to carry out a large part of the routine disease control work. Private practitioners have also played an essential part in assisting the veterinary service to cope with epidemics, and we have confidence that this longstanding co-operation will continue in any future epidemic situation.
I appreciate the constructive ending of the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he put five points that we might consider. We shall take them all into account and will write to him about them.
What of remedial measures, pay and restructuring? They are all-important in bringing about an upturn in recruitment, and it also seems probable that the pressure of recruitment for private practice has lessened of late.
The reorganisation of ADAS, which includes the State Veterinary Service, is to be implemented from 1st September next. It has been generally welcomed amongst veterinary staff. The Department has other measures under consideration for improving recruitment and enhancing job satisfaction and hopes shortly to open discussion on them with staff representatives. The British Veterinary Association agreed on 24th April to recommence printing Civil Service advertisements for veterinarians in its Journal without adding its own reservations. Last week, when I met the President of the Association and his colleagues, we discussed this and other aspects.
The Department employs over 200 lay assistants in support of the veterinary field service. The hon. Gentleman said we should be selective and discriminating in the use of our skilled manpower by farming out less essential or less skilled


jobs to the less-qualified. Their number will be increased as appropriate, though there are limitations on the type of work they can perform. The Department also makes full use of vets in private practice—known as local veterinary inspectors. There are about 3,000 LVIs on the Ministry's list and their fees amount to about £5 million a year.
I should like to close with a few points about the steps we are taking in addition to those to which I have referred. Job satisfaction, of course, is very important. It is probably as important in some ways as pay itself. We have discussed this with the veterinary management, the staff representatives and the IPCS. The recommendations which we have come to include the following. We believe that there should be more responsibility for basic grade veterinary officers. We believe that there should be better jobs for divisional veterinary officers with bigger areas based on Ministry divisions and more staff, and more specialist posts. We believe that there should be an integration of the two sides of the service—the field and the investigational laboratory sides.
What have we done already? Three more specialist DVO posts have been created at headquarters for EEC work on poultry meat hygiene. More posts are likely to be needed soon. Two more posts have been upgraded to DRVO specialist, one for import-export work and one for notifiable diseases. Work in progress includes more basic restructuring, which is essentially a longer-term job, but preparatory work is well in hand to speed action when circumstances permit.
I feel that at this hour of the day I have given a fair indication of an awareness of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall certainly consider his suggestions. I appreciate, as I am sure the Ministry does, the interest that the hon. Gentleman has shown. It will add a necessary spur to our endeavours to improve the service, to add to the recruitment and to ensure that the service provided from the Ministry is adequate for the demands placed upon it.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL POLICY

10.27 a.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I believe that there are very serious consequences for British industry as a result of the present Government's industrial policy. We do not know what that policy is. All that we have been treated to is not a White Paper, which we could have expected and through which the country could have been informed of what is in store, but a series of scares which appear in the Press daily.
What is the Government's industrial policy? We do not know. The Secretary of State has failed utterly to tell us by not publishing his plans. Or is it that he has been overruled at the last minute? Has the Prime Minister told him to pipe down on his pipedreams? Has the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, said that he has had enough? What about the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection? Have they had enough, too? We are entitled to know. We are about to go into the Summer Recess with this complete uncertainty about what the Government intend to do about the whole of the private sector of industry.
Today the Labour Party is split right down the middle. This miserable Government is split in two on this subject. Where does the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand on this matter? Does he believe in a national enterprise board?

Mr. John Ellis: Where is Ted?

Mr. Crouch: The Chancellor did not believe in a national enterprise board a year ago.

Mr. John Ellis: Where are your lot?

Mr. Crouch: The Chancellor is not in the Chamber. It was the Chancellor who moved an amendment against the Labour Party's proposals for a national enterprise board.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We have been remarkably peaceful during the night.

Mr. Crouch: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection.
I must remind the House, including the noisy hon. Gentlemen who have just


woken up after being asleep most of the night, that the Chancellor moved an amendment against the whole idea of a national enterprise board a year ago in the Labour Party's National Executive Committee. He was defeated by one vote. Does he believe that the Government can afford such a board? His Treasury advisers have no doubt but that it would be wildly inflationary. They are advocating deflationary policies. We have already seen the Chancellor ignoring this advice in his mini-Budget. Is he also reluctant to listen to their condemnation of his ambitious colleague the Secretary of State for Industry?
At a time when the whole country knows that we are in a fearful economic mess and is trying to make politicians of all parties hear its cry for a sense of national unity the Government refuse to listen and instead force upon the country their strangely divisive policies of pure undiluted Socialism. They do not give a damn, this Government, for what the public wants or for the fact that they are a minority Government who earned for themselves fewer votes than at any time since the war.
They will give us a Socialist State whether or not the public likes it. Is that to please the Fabian Society? No. Or the great body of Socialist moderates? No. It is not the majority in the country or in the Party whom they are aiming to satisfy, but the Left-wing militants who call all the tunes in this wretched Government.
My purpose today is to draw attention to the Government's completely irrelevant policies regarding further nationalisation of industry and wide intervention in the private sector of industry. The Secretary of State believes that he must do these things. He is quite determined. I do not believe that he will allow anyone to stand in his way. He is utterly convinced that it is the only solution for the problems facing us. I can accept his anxiety, but he is utterly wrong.
He is mad to pursue such policies at this or any time. It would be disastrous if he were to have his way. It is my hope that he will be forced to resign or will be sacked before he can start on his reign of industrial dictation. One thing is certain—the Secretary of State for Industry would find no place in any

coalition which might develop in this country. His ideas are now the policies of the whole Government. They strike fear into the private sector of industry.
If he gets his way private industry will be finished. The system of private enterprise will be ended. The right hon. Gentleman has never tried to hide his hand. He believes in open debate and has put forward his views, not in a White Paper, but he has allowed us to see his arguments and he has told us exactly what he intends to do. The last Labour Party manifesto made this absolutely clear to the electorate. The Government said that they would nationalise the aircraft industry, the ports and parts of the pharmaceutical industry. I must declare an interest in that I am associated as a director with a company in the pharmaceutical industry.
I am, however, talking about a much wider range. The Labour Party manifesto said that it would also nationalise large parts of the construction industry, road haulage and the machine tool industry. The Government have also hinted at taking over the building of aeroengines, the running of banks and other financial institutions and having a good look at the multinational companies. Quite a mouthful!
This is not all, and this is not all that worries me. The Secretary of State believes that the private sector is so incompetent that ultimately all of it must come under his control. His megalomania is remarkable, and it drives him. He intends to "set up new machinery", his own words, to do all of this. There will be a new Industry Act and a national enterprise board, and planning agreements.
What does he mean? Does everyone know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "planning agreements"? Under planning agreements with companies the right hon. Gentleman will give them orders to do a number of things. He will order them with regard to prices, how much they sell at home or abroad, where they may operate, how much they should and can invest, what they should produce and develop. He will also dictate their industrial relations policy.
Let every manager, every man and woman in industry consider what this


means. It means no enterprise, no initiative. It is 1984 in 1974. In addition to this piece of Socialist excess the Secretary of State will set up a national enterprise board. This, he says, will be used to attain objectives that can only be attained by direct and positive intervention. These are his words in his notes.
He says that the NEB will
retain public control in areas of the economy of great national interest
and that the NEB will purchase key sectors in manufacturing industry. The new Industry Act which he will introduce will be used to extend public ownership. The Government are out to turn Britain into a full Socialist State, in which the Secretary of State for Industry passionately believes. So, no doubt, do his supporters—and we are glad to see the Minister of State here this morning and some of his closest friends.
But there are many in the Government who shrink from such a mad policy. What a pity the Prime Minister is not big enough to stop the rot. The nation does not want it. If there is a General Election the public will show in no uncertain terms that they do not want it.
They are prepared to accept a mixed economy, as I am and as most balanced and moderate people are. Probably 25 million voters out of 40 million voters in this country are against such a revolution as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, the Government insist in floating such irrelevant, irresponsible and dangerous ideas. They are draining all confidence from industry, from the boardroom and the shop floor. They have split the Labour Party right down the middle and I think they have ruined their chances at the next election.
It is not for me to warn my opponents of the mistakes they are making. I should be gloating and rubbing my hands with glee. But I am afraid that the public may still not believe that such a fantasy as I have described could ever come to pass. I am afraid that they think of the Labour Party in terms of the model-ate majority epitomised by the intelligence of the Home Secretary and do not realise that the party is ruled by a wild minority, by men who want revolution and are determined to get it. At the risk

of assisting the Prime Minister with his chances this autumn may I say that I hope he will disown his right hon. Friend and instead give British industry the chance to survive on its own. Now is the time for him to put the interests of the nation before party dogma.

10.36 a.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I rise to speak on behalf of the motor industry of this country which accounts for over 8 per cent of our capital formation and over 12 per cent. of our exports. As I made plain in my maiden speech I believe that Governments of all parties have misused this industry to a degree unparalleled in history and in a manner quite inconsistent with the aims of growth to which both parties have subscribed.
I make no defence of the interference with this industry that took place when my party was in Government. It has militated directly against the growth of employment and of wages which I believe all of us wish to be one of our main aims. Whatever we may have done, however, is as nothing when compared with the proposals to which the industry is now to be subjected. We have been told of these proposals, not in the House, but in notes prepared in the Department of Industry and released through Transport House. There was no statement in this House, no Green Paper, not even a White Paper. It is for this reason that we hold this debate on the industrial policies of the Government, because we have not been afforded an adequate opportunity for such a discussion.

Mr. John Robertson: I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was declaring an interest when he rose to speak. Has he an interest in the car industry?

Mr. Miller: I am happy to declare that I have no financial interest whatever in the motor car industry—either in shares, retainers, in directorships or in any other sense.

Mr. Robertson: How then can the hon. Gentleman speak on behalf of the motor industry?

Mr. Miller: I am not the official spokesman for the motor industry. It is true that I have accepted a responsibility on behalf of my party.

Mr. Robertson: So the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Tory Party and not for the motor industry.

Mr. Miller: I have accepted a responsibility on behalf of my party to investigate the motor industry. I do not claim to be the party spokesman. I said that I had accepted a responsibility to look into the industry and to work on the basis of fact rather than on the basis of doctrine which the Labour Party takes as the basis for its proposals.
I refer to the programme of work transmitted through Transport House rather than in any ministerial statement or Government paper which we may have had an opportunity to discuss. In those notes, to which I suspect the Minister of State subscribes, we are told that the Government's programme of nationalisation and planning agreements is intended to counter low investment and poor growth, inflation, improve industrial relations, to make large corporations more accountable, to correct regional imbalance and to help to iron out some of the problems created by monopolies.
In the light of the record of the nationalised industries, what hope do we have that any of the aims of the Department's work programme will be met by an extension of nationalisation? Installed capacity in the motor industry is already running at about 2·6 million vehicles. Never in the last decade has that output been attained. Therefore, it is not merely a question of inadequate investment. The installed capacity is there for the output which our exports and trade balance required. However, the motor industry's efforts to produce have been frustrated largely by the proposals of the Labour Party.
We on this side were to blame for our use of the economic regulator, which has created untold damage in the motor industry, with sudden and violent fluctuations in demand which have led to the fluctuations in the demand for labour. This has been one of the root causes of the poor industrial relations in the industry.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I point out to him that in factories such as Rolls-Royce in my constituency,

which not only have full order books but are working as fast as they can to fulfil the orders, the labour relations problem is dealt with because they have intelligent man-management techniques. It is much more important to have properly trained people in personnel than it is to talk about the fluctuations that capitalism brings about by its own recycling.

Mr. Miller: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that one of the ills of the motor industry has been the system of lay-off. If she does not believe that, perhaps she will ask Transport House about it, because that follows from the information and discussion which I had there.
There is nothing in the Labour Party's proposals, so far as we have been able to understand them, and so far as they have been presented, which will cure the ills to which the motor industry is liable. What the industry requires is greater freedom from Government interference, with people who know their job, whether it be on the shop floor or in the office, being allowed to get on with it.

10.44 a.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The world outside this parliamentary hothouse will not understand why the debate on the most important issue facing the country today is given half an hour at the end of a very long sitting. One of the joys of the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is that if one feels strongly enough about an issue and waits long enough one can make a speech. We are told that at 10 to eleven the Minister of State will address us, and in the 10 minutes which I understand he will take it will be possible for him to rectify much of the damage done by his party in the last four months.
The Prime Minister has said that a clear frontier must be defined between public industry and private industry. Mr. Richard Marsh, when he was the Minister responsible for the steel industry, said on 19th January 1967:
The private sector of the steel industry is essential to the effectiveness of the industry as a whole. It has a special part to play.
Previously he had said:
The Government have taken a conscious decision…that the private sector is as important as the public sector to the economy of the nation."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January 1967; Vol. 739, c. 730.]


I remind the Minister of State of the important speech made by the Home Secretary, whom many Members on both sides of the House respect. He said:
we have to live with the realities of a mixed economy… I am also in favour of a healthy, vigorous and profitable private sector. We do and shall depend upon it to provide a great part of our jobs, our exports and our production.
If those obvious statements about a mixed economy are accepted, the Government should seek to provide the framework within which the public and private sectors can be prosperous and can expand. Above all, the Government should give confidence to industry and an assurance that its long-term plans will not be frustrated by the twists and turns of Government policy or by the relentless advance of State control and ownership.
There are differing views about the extent to which the public sector should advance. We on this side accept that there are differing views about the extent to which public ownership should advance. Parties and individuals are entitled to hold different views. But no party and no individual should be entitled at this time of economic uncertainty to put forward ideas which threaten our industrial prosperity; for that is the effect of the vague and threatening pronouncements of the Secretary of State for Industry and his departmental colleagues.
I give one example of what I call random walk nationalisation. The Financial Times of 29th July reported:
The Industry Secretary has agreed to consider a trade union proposal that the Post Office should take over at least part of Plessey's £142 million telecommunications business…The Department of Industry will look at the union's proposal in the context of a study which the Minister has asked the Post Office to make into the possibility of extending its manufacturing interests. The Post Office is unlikely to present its report before October.',
Unless the Minister of State denies the Press report, here we have a Ministerial statement of an intention to consider the nationalisation of part of a company which does not even fall within the high-risk area for nationalisation as declared by the Government. What effect must this statement have on investment and employment in the telecommunications industry? These questions demand an answer. In the 10 minutes left to the Minister he can repair the damage that

has been done in the last four months by the Government's vague and threatening behaviour.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Declare your interest.

Mr. Viggers: I am happy to declare my interest. I work as director of a merchant bank of which I am extremely proud. I am also director of one or two other companies—

Mr. Ronald Brown: What are they?

Mr. Viggers: I am director of a small oil company. I am chairman of a quoted textile company, a central heating installation company, a hotel company and several other companies. These activities enable me to have the knowledge to say that the Government's activities are damaging and to ask them to repair that damage.

10.52 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): Like many hon. Members I wish that the House could have had more time to discuss the Government's industrial policy. That there has not been more time is neither the Government's fault nor anyone else's. During the night there have been some fairly lengthy debates which I have noted from a seated position.
I regret the intemperate speech which was made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). It was not in his usual style. He does not usually speak in the House in so ranting a fashion. He made continuous personal attacks on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and tried to suggest, as his hon. Friends have been trying to suggest for some considerable time, that the Government's industrial policy is purely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. The Opposition know that that is not true. They know that industrial policy is the Government's policy. It was clearly laid down in the manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the last election.
On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman complains that he does not know what the Government's policy is and wishes that the Government would tell the House. On the other hand, he says that the Opposition know what the Government's policy is, and that it has all been


published by my right hon. Friend in the speeches he has made throughout the country. I do not know what the Opposition are complaining about. I do not know whether they are complaining that they do not know what the Government's policy is or that they know only too well what the policy is. Perhaps it is just that they do not like the policy. It is perfectly understandable that people who are dedicated to a totally free enterprise system should not like a policy which is put forward by a party that believes that we must move stage by stage towards a Socialist society.
The hon. Member for Canterbury has repeated on many occasions that we intend to introduce compulsory and dictatorial planning agreements. That is not, and never has been, the Government's suggestion. If the hon. Gentlemen would read Labour's programme for 1973 upon which the policy is based they would learn that there is no question of compulsory planning agreements. Companies will be asked to give information and there will be discussions between the companies and the Government, involving the trade unions at all stages, and a voluntary agreement will be reached between the Government and the companies concerned. Hon. Gentlemen ignore the fact that in many European countries—

Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to continue beyond 11 o'clock, as I am sure that many of us would wish to hear more of what he has to say? That would also enable him to answer the Opposition's questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: Several European countries already have planning agreements. They are not Socialist countries. They are France, Belgium and Italy—

Mr. Ralph Howell: Mr. Ralph Howell (Norfolk, North) rose—

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry, I cannot give way. Hon. Gentlemen must allow me to make my speech in the short time available. A debate on Irish affairs has been promised and it is right that that debate should take place. If hon. Gentlemen will listen for a moment, I will deal as quickly as I can with the questions that have been raised. If they constantly

interrupt, it will not be possible for me to do so.
Planning agreements exist in France, Italy and Belgium. Some of them, particularly in France, are on a sector basis, others are with individual companies. We shall institute a system of planning agreements that is tailored to the needs of this country. They will be fitted in with our requirements. That is why we object to the statements being made to the effect that my right hon. Friend and I are commissars. We do not intend to dictate to companies. An agreement is an agreement. The agreements will be voluntarily arrived at. Once the White Paper is published—

Mr. Crouch: When?

Mr. Heffer: —and there has been the fullest discussion on the White Paper, and consultations have been had with the people involved, companies will see the benefits that can be gained from planning agreements.
I come to the national enterprise board. I refute the charge that only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is concerned in this. The Prime Minister in introducing this policy at the Labour Conference last year said:
An essential instrument in our industrial policy will be the National Enterprise Board, with the functions and structure set out on page 33 of the Labour programme.
We intend to build a national enterprise board which will involve itself in competitive industry. The Opposition criticise the nationalised industries, but they have been a great success. Under successive Tory Governments they have not been given opportunities to expand and develop, and they have been held back. They have not been allowed realistic pricing policies. The effect has been a subsidy to private industry. Through the national enterprise board we intend to extend our policy into competitive industry. In that sense it will be a new form of publicly-owned industry. Conservatives say that if this were to happen, it would be the end of political democracy.

Mr. Crouch: I did not say that.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Canterbury may not have said that, but his Conservative colleagues constantly take that view. Unfortunately, the CBI


in its document equates private industry with political democracy. One can have a dictatorship in a Communist country as well as in a country full of privately-owned industries. Dictatorships can exist anywhere.
We are a democratic Socialist Party. We believe in democracy; that is the essence of our policy. Our belief is that through our system of planning agreements, and through the national enterprise board, the extension of public ownership in the direction of our programe, including the participation of trade unions and workers at every stage, will ensure a great extension of democracy—the very reverse of what the Conservatives say.
In conclusion, may I say that I am deeply sorry that I have been unable to answer all the points because of the time factor—[Interruption.] I do not complain about the situation.
I should like to make one final point raised by Conservative Members regarding trade unions which take the view that industries should be publicly owned. The view was tantamount to a suggestion that it was a crime for a trade union to suggest that its members who work in an industry should not have the right to suggest that possibly it should be taken over. The whole history of public ownership began when workers originated the suggestion of workers' control. That happened in the coal industry and was aimed at attaining decent living conditions for miners. I can well understand why the trade unions want to be involved in any extension of public ownership.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION ORDER)

11.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1947, a copy of which was laid before the House on 26th July, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974—that is, by urgent procedure.
Without taking up too much time of the House, I think it is important that the House should be aware of the context in which this order is brought before it. The Northern Ireland Assembly passed in March of this year, a Consolidated Fund measure which authorised the issue from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of amounts of £32,410,600 in respect of the 1973–74 Spring Supplementary Estimates approved by the Assembly and £229,026,400 in respect of a Vote on Account of the Estimates for Northern Ireland services for the current financial year 1974–75.
These amounts were not, however, appropriated to particular services as it was the intention, in accordance with normal practice, to appropriate them at the same time as the balance of the 1974–75 Estimates. The Estimates for the Departments of the Northern Ireland Government were actually in the process of being put to the Assembly at the time when the Assembly was prorogued, and, indeed, those relating to the Departments of Health and Social Services, Education, Agriculture, Commerce and Community Relations had already been debated and approved by the Assembly. However, those relating to Government, and the Department of Finance, Housing, Local Government and Planning, Environment and Manpower Services had neither been debated nor approved. During the present interim period, as previously during direct rule, Estimates and Supplementary Estimates will continue to be prepared and published as they form the basis for Appropriation Accounts which are, of course, essential for purposes of audit and parliamentary control.
The purpose of this appropriation order is therefore twofold—first, to authorise


the issue from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland of the balance of the main Estimates provision for the current year—that is the total in the Estimates, of which copies have been made available in the Library for the use of hon. Members, less the Vote on Account, the issue of which has already been authorised by the Consolidated Fund Measure to which I have referred, and, secondly, to authorise the appropriation of this sum, the Vote on Account and the Spring Supplementary Estimates.
The order is being made subject to urgent procedure so as to ensure that the balance of the main Estimates will be available to fund Northern Ireland Departments before the funds voted on account are exhausted. The Vote on Account provision is expected to be exhausted by mid-August. If the order had been made by normal procedure there is a strong possibility that, because of procedural difficulties, the Vote on Account provision would have been exhausted before the order could have come into effect.
The total of the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1974–75 is £618 million. The total Estimates provision in 1973–74 was £625 million, but some £65 million of this was in respect of law and order services which were made the responsibility of Westminster by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The real increase over 1973–74 is therefore £58 million. Some £35 million of the increase is accounted for by the full year effect of local government reorganisation which took place on 1st October 1973. As hon. Members may know, this saw the transfer of responsibility for several major services, including roads, education and water and sewerage, from local to central government. A substantial part of the increase in expenditure due to local government reorganisation is offset by an increase of £20 million in income from the regional rate, which is payable to the Department of Finance and not local authorities. This income is paid directly to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and not shown as an item in the Estimates or the appropriation order.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Is the £35 million a once-and-for-all sum? Does the hon. Gentleman regard the local government reorganisation as being

finished, or will there be future sums for that purpose?

Mr. Concannon: Certainly it has not finished. There are some substantial loose ends to tie up, but I do not imagine that it will require a sum of this kind in future years. The requirement will diminish as reorganisation comes into effect.
Perhaps I should add, in conclusion, that a Financial Statement showing Northern Ireland's estimated public income and expenditure for 1974–75 has been published and copies of it are available in the Library.
I must apologise for some of the printing errors in the order. However, I should point out one arithmetical error. In page 8, hon. Members will see Class IV, item 5, relating to expenditure on university grants, teacher training and the Ulster College. The figure is shown there as £24,151,400. That should read £24,141,400. The totals are correct. That is just a slip in the printing.
With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to answer the queries appropriate to the order.

11.3 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Under-Secretary for moving the order, and I am glad that he will seek an opportunity to answer our questions. It is possible that we shall need to give him notice of some of them. If he cannot answer them today, we shall be happy to receive his replies later.
One matter which is causing great concern in Northern Ireland at the moment is the proposed closure by British Rail of the sea link between Heysham and Belfast. I understand that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), in whose constituency Heysham is situated, is making representations to the appropriate Department here. However, I remind the Minister that the sea link is very important to tourism in Northern Ireland. It would be a tragedy if the sea link were discontinued because it is used by people to go across to Northern Ireland to enjoy the scenery and the hospitality of the Ulster people. I am sure that all hon. Members, no matter what their political views may be, are anxious for the day when peace will return to our troubled Province and tourism will again be one of our booming industries.
I ask the Minister to take into account that a private company is spending £9 million on shipping for the boosting of its sea link. I believe that British Rail and those connected with it should safeguard the sea link between England and Northern Ireland. I should like to know what representations the Secretary of State has received from the trade unions and others in the Belfast area who are interested in this matter.
I come to another important matter—agriculture in Northern Ireland. Through both Written and Oral Questions and in many debates on Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) and the other Members of the United Unionists coalition in this House have raised the matter of the world potato problem. The Minister is no doubt aware that an announcement was made about surplus potatoes in Northern Ireland stating that £17·80 per ton would be paid to the producers.
Potatoes were stockpiled by the producers. Some had markets for their produce, but, because of the export ban, they were not allowed to sell their potatoes. Eventually the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced this scheme for the payment of £17·80 per ton. That has now been reduced to £13 per ton.
There has been a certain administration difficulty in Northern Ireland, because many producers who applied for the £17·80 per ton have been told by the Northern Ireland Office that their applications were not received in time.
Two of my constituents, brothers, who farm separate farms, had 30 tons and 10 tons of potatoes respectively. They each filled in their forms and enclosed them in the same envelope. One was informed that his application was in on time and he got the £17·80 per ton, but the other man was told that he could have only £13 per ton.
I understand that the Potato Marketing Board in England has made up the leeway for English producers. I should like to know what the Minister is prepared to do for Northern Ireland producers. It seems unfair that, when producers in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to sell their produce and were not permitted

to sell it—indeed, we asked that the export ban should be lifted from Northern Ireland, but that was refused—the rest of the United Kingdom producers should have this money made up to them. There seems to be some lack of liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here and the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that my colleagues have had a meeting with Lord Donaldson about this matter. If the Minister can give an assurance on this matter it will be most helpful to the farming industry.
I need not reinforce the facts so ably put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) in the debate on the motion for the Adjournment for the Recess—that agriculture is in difficulty and any help which can be given to agriculture in Northern Ireland will be appreciated.
I come to one of the outstanding problems of the Northern Ireland Community—housing and the amenities available in housing. We have a strange anomaly in Northern Ireland. We have quite a numbe of houses in the public sector, which have now been passed to the Housing Executive, which have no amenities whatsoever. They have neither light nor water, yet the rents of these houses have been increased. Some of the tenants are paying a water rate for water which they never receive. I should like the Minister to look carefully into this problem and to see whether it is a fact that the money is available to the Housing Executive to carry out the modernisation of certain of these properties. If some of these cottages at present rented in the public sector were owned privately, they would be condemned and closed as being unfit for human habitation. This is one of the running sores in our community.
Will the Minister also pay attention to the fact that schemes have been put out in some areas—I am thinking particularly of my area of North Antrim and Stranocum—in which it was suggested to the people that if they would accept showers instead of a proper bathroom they would get a water supply, but that if they refused to accept showers and insisted on a bathroom they could have no promise of a water supply for many years. For young people, babes in arms and the old, a bathroom is essential. I ask the Minister to look into this matter carefully and not to have a policy in which people are


offered a shower and told that if they do not accept it they cannot be promised a water supply for many years. If the Minister looks at the Stranocum district especially he will find that this has been happening.
The majority of people who have been without amenities for many years are sometimes, because their patience has worn out, prepared to settle for the lesser rather than to get that to which I believe they are entitled. I am sure that the Minister will come to this problem with sympathy and that he understands it.
There is also the matter of the increase in rents for houses which have had no repairs done to them. I am thinking particularly of Granville Drive in Ballymena, which is also in my constituency. I am sure that many of the hon. Members present this morning have similar problems in their constituencies. A promise was made by the former Secretary of State that there would be no raising of their rents until essential repairs to roofs and to the water supply had been carried out. But then the rents were automatically raised. None of these repairs was done. This led to a sense of frustration among tenants of these houses.
Another matter concerns grants to the harbours of Northern Ireland. This matter comes into the category we are discussing. What amounts of money are available to local councils in Northern Ireland for harbour facilities? In my North Antrim constituency we have many small harbours. Some of them have silting problems. The local councils concerned find that they have not enough money available to them to keep these harbours open to the small fishing boats which use them. I am thinking particularly of Ballintoy harbour. The local council of Moyle has told local fishermen that the money is not available because it has many small harbours within its jurisdiction and when it divides up the money perhaps only £1,000 is available. The House will understand that such a sum does not go very far in dealing with a silting problem in a harbour. As the inshore fishing industry in Northern Ireland is very important, I ask the Minister to consider this question.
As regards the taking over of the majority of the shares in Harland and Wolff, will it be the Government's policy that when the nationalisation Bill comes

before Parliament the shipyard will go on to full nationalisation?
One of the last acts of the Assembly was to declare that it would abolish the Community Commission. Is that policy to be pursued by the present administration?
I understand that the contribution which former Members of Stormont paid to the pension fund has never been finally settled. One very able Member of the old Stormont Parliament—I refer to the Northern Ireland Labour Member, Mr. Vivian Simpson—did a lot of work on the pension fund, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will agree. When will the pension fund for the old Stormont Members be finally settled? What is to happen to the pension fund of the Assembly and those who were Members of Stormont and then became Members of the Assembly?
How many former Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland are on pension? What pensions are they drawing from the Exchequer? This would be an interesting detail for the people of Northern Ireland to learn.
I trust that today, as this money is being voted, Northern Ireland will not only have financial prosperity with the money being spent for the wellbeing of all members of the community but that the great problems facing us, not only of the constitution but of security, will be firmly grappled with so that in the coming days all members of the community enjoy peace, progress and prosperity.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At least six hon. Members wish to speak. This is a limited debate. I ask the House to bear that in mind.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Of course we understand the pleas the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) makes on behalf of his constituents and others in Northern Ireland for extra expenditure on housing, schools and other facilities which we all wish to see provided.
I do not think it is altogether out of place to say that a great many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members reflect, when asked to agree to this kind of expenditure, that they see


nightly on television pictures of the destruction of many facilities; and there comes a point when people on this side of the water begin to ask, "Why should we pay all this money and furnish all these resources for facilities in Northern Ireland when this destruction is going on and when all of us are short of primary schools, houses and hospital facilities?" I remind some Opposition Members that this is a gut reaction of people just saying, "This far, and no further."

Captain Orr: This is a very important line of argument. Is the hon. Member suggesting that while the IRA continues its campaign of destruction less money should be spent by the taxpayer on reconstruction?

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. and gallant Member well knows, I have for some months been arguing that the British Army should be withdrawn from Northern Ireland. During all this time, against the opinions of some of my colleagues, I have argued that no expenditure should be cut. I have been absolutely adamant in saying that we should not punish the people of Northern Ireland by withdrawing expenditure, and that puts me in a stronger position to make the remarks I did to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
Hitherto, I have argued absolutely forcefully—not giving way at all, in spite of the many feelings of those who support us on this side of the water and of members of the West Lothian constituency Labour Party, some of whom would like to see expenditure withdrawn —that no money should be withdrawn. I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there comes a point when it becomes very difficult for us to sustain expenditure, let alone vote extra expenditure for Northern Ireland.
I have one question which I raised during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Bill. None of us can be happy about the confinement of young people, whatever they may have done, in the Crumlin Road extension or in Long Kesh. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and I have argued for some time, a more imaginative approach should be adopted towards those who, whether one likes it or not will be the

next generation in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they have considered, as the Minister of State promised, ideas for some kind of Outward Bound scheme on the north coast of Ulster for those who have committed the less serious offences. We should like to see a more imaginative approach to young people who might have committed offences than simply putting them up in the barbed wire of Long Kesh or giving them some kind of badge or accolade of heroism by putting them into the extension of the Crumlin Road gaol.

11.28 a.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I, too, will be very brief. I may possibly have done the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) an injustice just now in my intervention because it may be that he might not quite have realised exactly what we are discussing here. This is not a grant by the United Kingdom Exchequer of some kind of extra subvention for Northern Ireland. This is what would in a sense be the equivalent of the Consolidated Fund Bill which we have just spent the night discussing.
May I congratulate the Minister on what I think was his first speech from the Dispatch Box. It would be wrong if someone did not congratulate him on the able way in which he presented it, but this is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding. We are in the position of a developed Assembly in going through the procedure of the estimates in the way that we normally examine them in this House. We are now, on behalf of Northern Ireland, asked to pass in effect what is a Consolidated Fund Bill without ever having had the opportunity in this House of going through the estimates. The Minister apologised to the House that it had been done under the emergency procedure in this way. We should like an assurance that this kind of procedure will not set a precedent for the future, and that whether or not the Convention, which will meet or be elected shortly, produces a new system we shall never again, whether we continue under direct rule or whatever happens, be faced with passing a Consolidated Fund Bill like this without proper scrutiny.
I simply want to raise one matter which is, I know, of interest to my right hon.


Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who wants to talk about it later. In these Estimates, which take us to 31st March 1975, no account is taken in respect of the borrowing powers—although I may be wrong on that score—and certainly so far as ordinary expenditure is concerned, of the money to go to Harland and Wolff.
I understand that some kind of departmental review is taking place about how money can be found to assist Harland and Wolff before a decision is taken on what it is proposed should come from the central Exchequer and how much from Northern Ireland. All I ask is that the Minister be kind enough to say something about that matter, whether the Estimates will take account of that, or whether the increase in the borrowing powers is intended to meet that.
I come to my other question. Class I deals with the salaries of the office of the Executive and other expenses connected therewith, and the sum of £631,500 is put down for that. Does that figure take account of the fact that the Executive element for pensions and so on for the has now come to an end? Is there any Executive? I do not know whether any arrangements were made for pensions for those who served in the Executive. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
Wider questions were touched on by the hon. Member for West Lothian and other hon. Members, namely, the whole question of security, which is the major cause of expenditure in Northern Ireland now. It would be out of order for me to speak about that now. All I say on that matter is that the situation continues to be wholly unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister to convey that comment to his right hon. Friend.
I do not wish to take up time now on the Estimates. My main point, which I hope that the Minister has taken on board, is that we should never have to do this again. I hope that we shall soon proceed to the elections for the new Convention. As there is now considerable uncertainty about the date of the General Election in the United Kingdom, I hope that we shall not simply be left with the situation that the election for the Convention cannot take place before a United

Kingdom General Election, as we do not know when on earth that may be.
The Minister may say that that is not the Government's position, that they hope soon to proceed to a Convention that will find some constitution for Northern Ireland that will save us from going through this wholly unsatisfactory procedure in future.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. William Craig: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) posed the question to the Minister that is very much in my mind. I have had no cause to regret the welcome that I gave to the Government's announcement to mount a rescue operation for Harland and Wolff. On that occasion we were given sparse information about the size of the operation and the cost to the Exchequer, and one feature of the matter concerns us today.
The Government rightly said that the cost of the operation would have to be shared among Northern Ireland funds and that certain Northern Ireland projects could be affected by this operation. I should like to know whether the Minister can give us any indication of the size of the operation and how it will affect development projects in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members from Northern Ireland would agree that Harland and Wolff is of special importance to the economy of Northern Ireland and would support the postponement of some other less important developments in order to save the shipyard, but we should like to be assured that the approach to this operation is on the basis of making Harland and Wolff a competitive shipbuilding yard and reaching as quickly as possible a state of profitability.
The Government announced that as part of this rescue operation it was proposed that there should be established a much-expanded apprenticeship training. As I understood the announcement, it was to be a training centre that catered for much more than the needs of Harland and Wolff. I know that since that announcement was made there has been some concern among those who work in the shipyard that the cost of this training exercise for the economy in general may be carried wholly by the shipyard, and it is thought


that that would be unfair. I share that view, and I should like the Minister to give an assurance that if the training capacity of Harland and Wolff is expanded to meet needs other than of the shipyard the Government will meet the cost of that additional provision for training.
I am also concerned, since the matter will touch so closely on other developments, that the future management and control of Harland and Wolff should be spelt out very quickly. I do not think any of us would disagree with the Government's decision that, because of the massive injection of public funds, they should take a controlling interest. We welcome the fact that the controlling interest is to be taken in the form of the Northern Ireland interest in Harland and Wolff.
None of us would seriously dispute the approach to workers' participation in the management of the company, but we have not been given any real idea how that is to be achieved and how the second tier of company management may be arrived at. I know that among shipyard workers today there is considerable speculation as to how the workers' representatives will be selected.
I may be posing unfair questions to the Minister. If I am, I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a great deal of anxiety in Northern Ireland and that we should like answers to these questions as soon as possible.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I follow on the remarks that have been made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) in relation to the position of Harland and Wolff's shipyard.
I think it has been conceded by all political representatives throughout the history of Northern Ireland that Harland and Wolff is the linchpin around which the whole economy, particularly of East Belfast, will survive. I, too, am grateful for the Government's assistance, but we are not certain about the position in relation to the work force in Harland and Wolff. We have heard figures quoted and rumours to the effect that for Harland and Wolff to be an economic project it would have to employ at least another 2,000 men, but there is not the skilled

labour in the city of Belfast from which to draw that number of men.
We have also heard that objections may be raised by certain elements to the people who would be employed in Harland and Wolff. I hope that any financial assistance given by the Government towards the maintenance of Harland and Wolff's shipyard will be on the basis that the work force for that industrial establishment is drawn from both sections of the community in Northern Ireland and that no bar or hindrance will be put on anyone obtaining employment in the Belfast shipyard because of the church in which he worships.
Throughout a number of sad and tragic years, the fact is that the people of Belfast—trade unionists, working-class representatives and others—have not at any time advocated that financial assistance should be withdrawn from the shipyard. We have always said that if a work force is to be built up and training facilities are to be given they should be available to people from both sections of the community.
It will be conceded by hon. Members who represent Belfast constituencies that, since the demise of the Belfast Corporation and the coming into being of the new local authority, there has been a dramatic increase in transport costs in the city of Belfast. I believe that the city now has the dearest transport system in operation anywhere in the United Kingdom. I know from my constituency—and this will be supported by other hon. Members from Belfast constituencies—that the fares in Belfast, particularly if one has a young family attending school, are causing great hardship to working-class families who find themselves unable on many occasions to send their children to school because they do not have the money to pay the fares. This is an urgent problem to be looked at by the Minister through the Department for the Environment in Northern Ireland.
There are questions being asked in Northern Ireland, but some people say they should be asked in secret because they take the view that nothing should be said to embarrass the Labour Government in view of certain things that happened during the strike in Northern Ireland. I do not think it would be honest to keep these facts swept under the carpet.
I know that the Conservatives will try to make political capital out of the events during the strike and will attempt to equate that strike with other industrial disputes in the United Kingdom. It is not my intention to equate what happened during that strike in Northern Ireland with events during industrial disputes throughout the United Kingdom, because that was a political stoppage. It was not about wages, conditions or hours of employment. It was a unique circumstance and I do not think that the Conservative Government should use it as a battering ram to beat down Socialist proposals and attitudes in relation to industrial stoppages.
I am asking the Under-Secretary a specific question. Will he say now, or will he be able to say later, how many people were officially on strike in Northern Ireland? How many people who were identified with the running of the UWC strike were paid social security benefit throughout the time that the strike lasted? How much was paid to people who created an industrial stoppage with the intention of bringing to an end the system of Government in Northern Ireland? I know that many Tories will listen to me with glee, because they will say that this happened as a result of the miners' strike in Great Britain. I do not believe that the same circumstances applied in Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that there are not many Tories here.

Mr. Fitt: I hope that they will have an opportunity to read my remarks. I know that the Conservatives will say that the miners' strike was calculated to bring to an end the Conservative Government, but I do not believe that that was so. I believe—and events and circumstances have since proved—that the miners were justified in taking industrial action to better their wages, conditions and way of life.
Such was not the case in Northern Ireland. The people there deliberately and in a calculated way decided to engage in industrial action with the specific intention of bringing to an end the system of Government in Northern Ireland. They were paid for doing so, and we have heard various figures put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester,

Blackley (Mr. Rose) recently tabled a Question to the Northern Ireland Office asking what was the cost of the payments and social benefits throughout that period of industrial action in Northern Ireland. The figure he was given was £5 million. I have heard different figures from the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. It has been said that £9 million was paid out by the social services.
What compensation was paid to the farming community in Northern Ireland for loss of produce, and so on? One can well remember that many farmers—

Captain Orr: It will be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating the view held in places outside the House that social service benefits should be withdrawn from strikers.

Mr. Fitt: That is the last thing I should ever suggest. That is why I am clarifying my remarks all along the line and saying that I shall not equate what happened in Northern Ireland with any strike that takes place in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) knows very well that the strike in Northern Ireland was paid for by the British Government. The net result was that the British Government's solution for Northern Ireland—namely, the Sunning-dale Agreement, the Assembly and the Executive—was brought to an end, and it was paid for by British money.

Mr. Craig: Is it not a fact that Mr. Devlin was the Minister for Social Security at that time, and that he took the decision?

Mr. Fitt: I accept that in the early days of the strike it became clear that the staff, whether they were being intimidated or not, were not prepared to work for the Ministry of Health and Social Services to ensure that those who were innocently involved would get social security benefit. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend, who at that time was a member of the Northern Ireland Executive, took the action that he thought necessary to safeguard the interests of those who were prevented by intimidation from going to their place of employment. He put through an emergency order, but that order was taken advantage of by those who were actively engaged in promoting the strike.
If a strike takes place in other parts of the United Kingdom and a person becomes engaged in it, benefit may be withheld from him but it continues to be paid to his wife and children. But in Northern Ireland no one said he was on strike. Every person who was out of work at that time reported to the labour exchange and said, "I have been intimidated from going to my place of employment". Who was intimidating them at that time?
We are all aware that there was intimidation, and those who were engaged in intimidating others from going to their normal places of employment were being paid social security benefits by the Government. Some attempt should be made to discover those who were engaged in the operation of the strike, and some attempt should be made to ensure that they do not receive the same treatment as those who were the victims of the conspiracy to bring about the downfall of the Northern Ireland Executive and Government.
Before the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South asks the next question, shall put it. What compensation will be paid to the farming community in Northern Ireland to cater for the effects of the strike? Many innocent farmers were caught up by the effects of the strike, but many more farmers were giving active support to those who were organising the strike. They were taking days off from their employment and engaging in parades with tractors and other farm implements right up to the very gates of Stormont and protesting about the existence of the Assembly and calling for its downfall, yet those farmers, too, were, or will be, paid compensation. That is why people in Northern Ireland will want to know exactly how much compensation has been paid to those who were actively engaged in bringing the Northern Ireland Executive to an end.
I listened to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who in Northern Ireland is recognised as being a good constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that those responsible for compiling the OFFICIAL REPORT will already have sent him notice asking how to spell Stranocum and the other towns he has mentioned, as he did repeatedly in the old Stormont Parliament. I am sure that

those constituents will be duly impressed that their interests have been brought to the attention of this august assembly.
In Northern Ireland there is a serious housing shortage. The question of the situation and allocation of housing has always been a bone of contention in Northern Ireland. The only one way to take that item out of the fire of dissension is to build an adequate number of houses. The millions spent on strikes could have been spent on providing homes for the homeless.
I support the comments of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). However much I might be opposed to my political opponents in Northern Ireland, I certainly would not advocate that financial restrictions be used by this Government, because financial restrictions cannot be applied selectively in Northern Ireland. Such restrictions would have a running effect throughout the whole community.
My hope is that the Minister in charge of housing and planning in Northern Ireland will recognise that this is ore of the most important ministries in the whole Northern Ireland set-up. Indeed, my friend in Northern Ireland, Mr. Currie, who was the Minister of Housing and Planning in the Executive, had very good, forward-looking plans to tackle the whole housing problem in Northern Ireland. I only hope that the Minister will be able to carry out those plans, which were drawn up by the Executive in Northern Ireland.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I believe that the consideration of Schedule B, Class I, allows me to raise the important matter of the status of the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.
In raising that matter, I draw upon some remarks made this weekend by one of those politicians whom I most admire in this House—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins). Bearing in mind that I am a most junior member of the Tory Party, I hope that in saying I admire him I shall not damage him any more than he has already been damaged by those on the left wing of his party.
The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that today one of the most important things that all of us


must be concerned about is the maintenance of the rule of law. One of the conditions for the maintenance of the rule of law is that the judges should have a rôle that is formal, objective and divorced from political battles. One of the mistakes that the Tory Party made between 1970 and 1974 was to make the judges of the National Industrial Relations Court persons who plainly fulfilled a comparatively informal rôle, who lacked the appearance of formality and objectivity that should be the very basis of a judge's function. As a result, we found the situation that occurred in this Parliament, when, in the House, the Secretary of State for Employment attacked one of Her Majesty's judges, thereby further undermining the rule of law.
I respectfully suggest that if the Government—whoever they may be after the autumn—decide to make a judge the head of the Constitutional Convention a further minor blow will be struck at the rule of law. The chairmanship of the Constitutional Convention will be a highly political rôle. No matter what happens as a result of that political Convention, it will give rise to a tremendous amount of acrimony and deep political passions, and the last thing that we want is to see a formal, judicial figure attacked in the way that Sir John Donaldson was attacked in this Parliament by the Secretary of State for Employment.
I urge the Minister to take note of the deep disquiet on this side of the House at the suggestion that the Constitutional Convention should be headed by a judge. In that I wholly agree with the views cogently put forward by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and I hope that the Minister will take account of the fact that those views are widely held on both sides of the House.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: It is lamentable that there is not a speaker on the Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) moving over to that position. I know that he will add dignity to the Front Bench.
First, I should like to congratulate, on this day of all days, Willie John

McBride—it is appropriate, under the appropriation order, to do so—and also the British Lions team which toured South Africa and never lost a match. I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and hope that he will arrange for a reception for the captain and the manager of the British Lions when they return to Northern Ireland, because that would do a great deal for Ulster's morale.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: No, I am not giving way. I appreciate that there are many Members on the Government benches who are against a lot of things, but I do not want to get bogged down in that. There is only a limited amount of time available for this debate, and I must protest about that. I accept what the Minister said, that time is limited. I could speak for at least two hours on the appropriation order, but I hope to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Once hon. Members are on their feet I cannot control their time. I can only indicate that the debate will finish at 12.30 p.m., and we hope to have two short speeches from the two Front Benches.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely this debate will finish at 12.31 p.m., as it did not start until 11.01 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should not like to disagree for the sake of a minute or two.

Mr. Kilfedder: That has wasted one of my minutes.
First, will the Minister make sure that the application to increase the air fare between Belfast and London and other places in Great Britain does not succeed? It is a profitable route, and it would be disgraceful if that lifeline were affected. I share the views that have been expressed, and I have myself expressed criticism in the past about the proposed closure of the Heysham ferry.
I have also been pressing for some time for a rent allowance scheme for Ulster, similar to that which exists in Great Britain. It is ironical that Northern Ireland workers, who generally earn less


than workers in England, do not have the benefit of such a scheme. Their rents are fixed by the housing executive and private landlords who are subject to the same financial forces as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, and rents in Northern Ireland are not significantly different from rents in Great Britain.
Last week I was glad to hear from one of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office that a rent rebate scheme was being currently considered for the benefit of all housing executive tenants. At the moment, we have the unsatisfactory situation that the Housing Executive operates a rent rebate scheme only for houses that were formerly in the possession of the Belfast Corporation and the old Northern Ireland Housing Trust. We have no legal right, unless the law is changed—which I hope it will be—to a rent rebate scheme for other houses built by the Housing Executive or by any of the 63 other local authorities before the housing executive took over.
When the estimates to which the appropriation order relates were being debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly last March, I was disturbed by the apparent attempt by some Members of the Assembly—I hope that the Minister agrees on this—to interfere with the traditional autonomy of British universities by criticising what they regarded as the lack of dynamite in the New University at Coleraine. It was even suggested that the New University should be closed down. It we were to close down every educational institution that did not achieve its student target, a great number of universities and polytechnics in Great Britain would be closing their doors today.
Last year there were nearly 7,000 unfilled university places in Great Britain, and I think that the critics of the New University of Ulster ought to bear this in mind. Already in England and Wales the student target for 1980 has been reduced by 40,000 in the university sector alone, and we still await the latest projection for the non-university sector, and perhaps those figures will also be cut.
Northern Ireland's record in higher education, despite the troubles, has been excellent. Perhaps the early student targets were too high; perhaps that gives

ground for the criticism that we hear expressed now. But five to 10 years ago we were all very optimistic about student numbers in higher education, and the New University of Ulster has grown from literally nothing but green fields by the banks of the River Bann to a massive pile of new buildings and more than 1,600 students in six academic years—a rate of growth unparalleled for a new university anywhere in the United Kingdom. All this has been achieved against a background of violence, with more than 1,000 dead and in excess of £100 million worth of damage to the Province. This is equivalent—and it is worth bearing in mind—in Great Britain to 45,000 dead and £4,500 million worth of damage.
Unlike Essex and Stirling Universities in Great Britain, there has been no student unrest in Northern Ireland apart from the rent strike last year as part of the campaign of the national university students for higher grants. I supported that campaign, although I ought to make it clear that I deplored the rent strike. I supported the NUS campaign both in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in this House, and I welcome the new rates of grant and the decision for the annual review. I hope that the Minister will look at the other anomalies in students' grants, for there are many. Attention must be paid to those anomalies, and they must be removed.
There is an unevenness in the extent to which the resources of technical colleges are used in Northern Ireland. In my own constituency I believe that all the places at Bangor technical college have been taken up, while the associated college at Newtownards a few miles away is under-used. The same picture holds true for the whole Province. There seems to be too much rivalry for potential pupils between intermediate schools and technical colleges at one end of the age group and between technical colleges and Government training centres at the other end. Here again is a problem which I hope the Minister will consider. Perhaps he can say something about it when he replies. Certainly it will present a problem to the next Northern Ireland administration. There seems to me to be a duplication of resources, and inevitably there is a suspicion that inefficient use has been made of the available funds, which we would all regret.
Class 10 deals with manpower services, and more than £11½ million is for unemployment, training and rehabilitation—we are not told how much of this is for Government training centres and perhaps the Minister can give the figures—but since Northern Ireland provides more places per head of the population at Government training centres than the rest of the United Kingdom, presumably the sums required are substantial.
I wonder whether greater use might not be made of the excellent facilities and training staff at the technical colleges. Certainly the Lisburn, Bangor and Newtownards technical colleges—all worthwhile institutions—could provide facilities for a great number of apprentices in training. The aim of most modern apprentice training courses is to combine the practical with the theoretical, and the technical colleges are, in my opinion, able to provide both.
Apart from the crowds of hooligans in Northern Ireland who get themselves photographed and appear on television throwing stones at the police and the Army, the great majority of young persons in Northern Ireland—Protestants and Roman Catholics—have come through the last six dreadful years a credit to the community. Many young people who have been exposed to far fewer temptations, problems and difficulties, and in a far less divided society, have shown a greater tendency to indiscipline and to vandalism. I believe that credit ought to be paid to the young people in the Province.
I have a particular interest in youth and community services. At the moment these are the responsibility of three Departments—the Department of Education, the Department of Manpower and the Department of Community Relations. I welcome the recommendations of the interdepartmental working party on youth employment and related services. Among these is a recommendation that schools should have careers guidance teachers. In North Down some schools are playing a vital part in providing evening youth club activities for young people in the area.
It would be invidious to mention any particular school, but the efforts of the principal of one—Mr. Beckett—and his staff at Glastry secondary school deserve special commendation. The school ser-

vices a wide area in the south Ards peninsular, and I know from talking to young people in the area how much the club facilities are appreciated. Indeed, it has enhanced the status of the school in the eyes of the community. The facilities are open to all—irrespective of religion—and it is a pity that more money is not available to increase their extent. Other parts of Northern Ireland receive substantial sums of money for community activities, and I trust the Minister can assure me that because North Down is relatively quiet it will not suffer as a consequence.
The school's youth club is a good example of the use that can be made by willing and co-operative staff of the extensive facilities provided by modern schools. It seems wrong that schools should close at 4 p.m. when they could provide a continuing educational and recreational experience for children in the evenings and at weekends. Nevertheless, schools alone cannot provide for the full range of interests of young people during their leisure time. Youth clubs and outdoor sports facilities are needed.
I wish to mention three towns in my constituency—Comber, Donaghadee and Hillsborough. They are particularly sad examples of small towns where a youth centre is needed, and I am disappointed that my representations have so far not met with the success for which I had hoped. I ask the Minister to look into this matter.
Ideally, I believe that community services, including the Youth Employmnet Service, should be the responsibility of one Department. That way, we are likely to see the achievement—which I earnestly seek—of community services for all age groups. There is as great a need in modern urban life for community services for young married couples, and for the elderly as there is for the young. What could be better than for these groups to meet in the one community centre?
The proposal to transfer the Youth Employment Service to the Department of Manpower Services should be examined in the wider context of community services as a whole. The Department of Community Relations had to be artificially increased in size by giving it responsibility for sport and leisure centres in order to create a job for the holder of that office


in the former Northern Ireland Executive. Creating political jobs for the boys is not a good basis for the management of financial resources.
What I have been advocating for many years is the amalgamation of the Department of Education and the Department of Community Relations. Good community relations begin in the school and in the home. We talk a great deal about integrated education, but we all know it will not be achieved overnight. I am sorry about that, but it is a fact of life. But at least we can go some way by getting the management framework right at the highest level. By combining the two Departments under single control we would have all the essential ingredients united for a frontal attack upon the divisive influences in the community.
The high hopes of a few years ago, when the Northern Ireland Housing Executive took over responsibility for public housing, have been seriously damaged. A vast bureaucracy seems to have been created. The staff do their best—particularly those in local offices throughout the Province—but I know from experience that the structure of the organisation and shortage of staff have hindered its work.
The standard of the construction of new houses and relatively new houses is deplorable. There is dampness in walls and floors, and there are leaking windows and ill-fitting windows and doors. I have personally inspected many such houses. It is pathetic to see the efforts of tenants to paper and paint the interior of their homes and generally to lavish attention and money on them being destroyed by these defects.
Better control of building standards is needed. The work of the maintenance staff is made well-nigh impossible, because there are so few of them. I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that he will recruit more people for maintenance work in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
I also wish to refer briefly to the water situation in the Province, because this needs to be examined. There is hardly any part of Ulster which does not suffer from a shortage of water during the summer. This is extraordinary in a land

which reputedly has a heavier rainfall than most other parts of the United Kingdom. In some areas the pressure is so weak that water does not reach houses and farms which are on elevated, or relatively elevated, sites. In Donaghadee, to make matters worse, at times the water has such a bad taste, smell and colour that it is unfit to be used. This has been the position for a number of years, and it is disgraceful that householders in that urban area in 1974 should have to draw water from a tap on the outskirts of the town that is fed from a different reservoir.
Also, parsimony in the use of public funds led to the new fishing harbour at Portavogie being too small even before work started on it. I realise that all these questions that I have raised are a matter of priority, and that views as to what should receive a high priority and what should receive a low priority differ, but the fishing industry is important. It provides employment directly to several hundred people in my constituency alone, and I should like to see a sense of urgency about extending the harbour at Portavogie. There should also, in my opinion, be a sense of urgency about providing a second ferry between Portaferry and Strangford.
The Government's decision to make a further substantial investment in Harland and Wolff—the shipyard has already been referred to—is widely welcomed in the Province. I understand that it will be £11 million out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in the current year. I presume that this is not covered in the present appropriate order, since I cannot find any increase in Clause VI for that amount. Perhaps the Minister could help me on that matter. No doubt the industry will require further substantial funds from the Consolidated Fund in future years if it is to maintain its place as the premier shipbuilding yard in the United Kingdom.
If the principle of assistance is agreed for big industrial enterprises when they run into difficulties, I do not understand why similar assistance cannot be directed to the beef, egg, pig and ware potato producers. The approach to agriculture seems to be nit-picking and unfair, since it is the biggest employer of labour in the Province and contributes substantially to the wealth and well-being of the United Kingdom.
I realise that time must be given for the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest to speak, but I should like to conclude by asking the Minister to look at the position of the Bangor hospital. It is disgraceful that an area that has a substantial residential population should not have a hospital that can deal properly with emergency cases. A man who had a heart attack could not be dealt with in that hospital. I ask the Minister to ensure that a proper hospital is provided in Bangor, and also to look at the question of the pay of nurses, radiographers, dieticians and others who make a valuable contribution to the health of the people of the Province.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The honour has been somewhat suddenly thrust upon me of expressing the support of the Conservative and Unionist Party for the order before the House.
Neither the sum of money involved in the appropriation nor the borrowing powers is chicken-feed. Therefore I agree, and I believe that the whole House will heartily agree, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who complained of the manner in which such large sums were being handled by the House of Commons.
I need not say more about that, because much was said about this matter in this House during the last spasm of colonial rule in Northern Ireland. Even if Northern Ireland does not soon find a way back to self-government, as some of us hope, at least when the House returns I trust that we shall have a more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters, whether through an Ulster Grand Committee, or in some other way.
I will not presume to refer to the admirable and, in some cases, admirably short speeches made during the debate, as time does not allow. I had hoped to contribute some comments of my own to the debate with regard to tourism, referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), with regard to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and with regard to the Commissioner for Complaints. I believe that we in Great Britain can learn something from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for

Complaints in setting up our own local commissioners. In some ways, I believe the scheme in Northern Ireland to be superior.
This brings me to the last point that I am able to make before allowing the Under-Secretary of State to reply to the debate and take up all our points, which have been offered in a constructive and non-partisan way. We in the House and on this side of the water can learn not only about dealing with local government complaints but in many other ways from Northern Ireland institutions and from the brave Ulster people.

12.17 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to answer as many as I can of the matters we have raised. There were quite a lot of them, and, although they had little to do with the appropriation order, they will give us the chance to talk about some of the other problems that affect Ulster.
The one matter which has been mentioned by almost every speaker is that of Harland and Wolff. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), after a short time as a Minister in Northern Ireland one suddenly realises that here is the crux of the employment situation; and the confidence of Northern Ireland revolves around what happens to the huge cranes that one can see from any part of Belfast and the surrounding countryside. It is, therefore, only fair to say that anything to do with Harland and Wolff and the shipyard is a very worrying factor for the people of Northern Ireland.
As to the present intentions of Harland and Wolff—and this affects the Appropriation Fund—there is nothing in the Appropriation Fund or the estimates which has anything to do with Harland and Wolff and the present situation; these estimates were drawn up in December and were ordered by the Assembly to be printed on 20th March.
I do not think I can add to the statement made a week ago in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on Harland and Wolff, mainly because there have been so many confidential talks with the trade unions and management, and, in view of the delicate


situation, it would not be wise to say anything further on that statement.
The statement covered the specific question whether we have made up our minds to take the yard into full public ownership, when my right hon. Friend said that we were intending, as a rescue operation, to take a substantial proportion of the equity of the company, without ruling out full nationalisation and the take-over of the shipyard at some future date. I do not want to go any further than that now, as the situation is rather delicate, as I have said, with confidential talks taking place with the trade unions, management and others concerned with the shipyard.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about the Heysham-Belfast ferry and asked me whether I would comment on this. As I think he understands, this is basically a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. I shall ensure, of course, that all the points upon which I do not comment now—and I do not think I shall be able to answer them all in so short a time—are picked up, and I shall write to the hon. Member on everything that I do not cover today. This is a matter which concerns the Heysham-Belfast ferry and the Department of the Environment, and I shall ensure that the Minister in charge of that Department is informed of the hon. Gentleman's request.
The hon. Gentleman also touched upon the agricultural side of this question, in relation to the trouble within the potato market. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Lord Donaldson has been talking potatoes for some considerable time; I think one could say that he is up to his neck in potatoes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the matter is being considered.
The one point upon which I would agree with everyone who has spoken in the debate is the housing problem. I think it is fair to assume that anybody taking over the Housing Ministry in Ulster would soon find that the housing situation throughout the Province is somewhat behind the situation in this country. The Housing Executive—a body which we do not have in this country, and which works under terrific strains and restraints —does a wonderful job. I sometimes

wonder at that, in view of all the criticism which it gets in the midst of all the troubles and problems of that Province. I agree, however, that the housing problems in Ulster are endemic, and it really needs some crash programmes if it is to put this problem right. There are problems in Ulster that one would not find in England, and it is time that they were tackled in a big way.
The rent policy, which was discussed, is also under review. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a case, which he raised with me this week—and on which I have written to him—relating to the rent rebate scheme. In Ulster there is an anomaly in that the rent rebate scheme applies to the old trust houses and the Belfast Urban District council houses, which in effect means that somebody drawing the rent rebate can be living next door to another person who, although residing in the same conditions, does not draw the rent rebate. This anomaly has been brought to our attention; we are working on the problem, and we shall see what can come out of it.
In reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I understand that in Class VI Vote 3 there is a sum amounting to £1,532,000 in the financial statement for this year. How this amount is divided I am not quite sure at the moment, but we shall write to him.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) criticised the way in which we are bringing in the order. Basically, I agree with him but I think he will understand the urgency of the order after he has heard my speech. If we do not get the order through, I can say no more than that the Province of Ulster will be bust by mid-August and that there will be nothing with which to pay the wages, salaries or other expenditure there. Therefore, we have had to use the urgency procedure. At the time when we put down the order we were not sure when the House would rise, or whether we could get the time to discuss it on the Floor of the House. As things have turned out, of course, we need not have resorted to the urgency procedure, but one was not to know that at the time, and the Department could not risk failing to invoke the urgency procedure.
On the question of resorting to that procedure again, we have to prove our case before doing so. It is not merely a


matter of the Department saying that it wishes to adopt the urgency procedure; it must prove its case. I should not like to invoke this procedure, any more than I think any of the other Departments would like to do so, unless it is absolutely necessary in view of the situation in Ulster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West asked some questions about the UWC stoppage and about the people who were on strike, who were intimidated to strike and who could not get to work because of the strike. We found it virtually impossible to differentiate among the three. The latest figure, which has been confirmed to me, is of a cost of £5 million.
As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman the other day, there were 200,000 claims during the period—normally during such a period there would have been 2,000 to 3,000 a week. But it is quite impossible to categorise those who were, to put it this way, officially on stoppage, those who were intimidated to stop and the many who tried to get to work but failed. But there is nothing in these estimates or elsewhere to cover that £5 million.
I stress that this order was passed by the Assembly, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. Hon. Gentlemen may not like the way it has turned out, but that is how it is—unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way one looked at it.
No evidence has yet been received for payment of compensation, and, as far as I am aware, there will not be any, unless some special cases are put forward.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) commented on the Convention. His views are valuable and will no doubt be considered when voting on the convention machinery takes place.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) chided me a little about Willie John McBride and the Lions. I may have the physique of a prop forward, but I have never played rugby—I go for some of the gentler sports. From what I have read and heard of the Lions, I do not think that my share of the Vote for entertainment and social occasions would last them two minutes.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about Government training centres and the amount put aside for that purpose. The sum of £7,820,300, which the hon. Gentleman will find in Class X, Vote No. 2, is provided for training by technical colleges, employers and certain other bodies, such as area boards.
I have read and heard much about water shortages and Bangor hospitals. All these and other issues raised by hon. Gentlemen will be considered and I shall endeavour to put them to the appropriate Departments and ensure that an answer is forthcoming.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who was elevated as quickly as I was today, asked about tourism. Northern Ireland is an absolutely beautiful country, with its lakes and fishing. It is a wonderful place for tourists, and one finds plenty to do there, irrespective of what happens elsewhere in the Province. While the job that I had prior to coming to the Northern Ireland Department kept me relatively busy, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I am enjoying my job. It is a tremendous challenge, and I assure hon. Members that I am not bored.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Hospitals (Weston-super-Mare)

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition, signed by 45,000 residents of Weston-super-Mare and district and visitors to that town, requesting a new district general hospital. By the luck of the Ballot, I was enabled to make out this case in some detail on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and I shall trouble the House no further, save to read the petition.
The humble petition of the people of Weston-super-Mare, Woodspring and Sedgemore district and others sheweth
That the present hospital facilities available are deplorably inadequate to the present-day


needs of the people and have been for many years, create difficulties for the medical and nursing staff and cause delays and frustration to patients.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do take such steps as are necessary to instigate immediately the building of a new district general hospital at Westonsuper-Mare, to serve that town and the surrounding area.
The petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — UGANDAN REFUGEES

12.32 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I am sorry to have to put the Minister of State to inconvenience now, having kept him out of bed on another subject during the night. However, our inconvenience is nothing to the shattering disaster that struck thousands of Uganda Asians in 1972. I shall be paying tribute to the efforts of the people here in Britain at the receiving end, but we should first salute the courage and cheerfulness of the refugees themselves.
If I were moving a motion, I should suggest today that the House ought to take note of the final Report of the Uganda Resettlement Board published in April. There have been few occasions when the House has been able to discuss the Uganda refugee operation, and it would be wrong if this final report, and the winding-up of the Board itself earlier this year, passed without at least this short opportunity to acknowledge what has been achieved and to consider what still remains to be done.
First, I mention a few of the bare facts and figures. About 28,000 people who had been expelled from Uganda passed through the Board's reception arrangements. Homes were arranged for refugees by the Board in about 400 different local government areas in the then local government structure. This was a

very fair measure of dispersal, and certainly better than it would have been if the Board had not taken so much trouble to give guidance and to arrange for the resettlement to be on the widest possible scale.
We learn also from the Board's report that all the refugees in its centres were eventually found accommodation, even the special cases of large families, the disabled or the very old, so that there was no need for any permanent hostel to house any of the refugees after the closing of the last centre at West Mailing in Kent.
The final fact of which I remind the House is that, at the time the Board made its report, it was estimated that about 85 per cent. of the Uganda Asians who wanted work had already found work of some kind.
I wish now to pay a tribute to some of the people who were concerned in the reception at this end. First, I refer to the Uganda Resettlement Board itself. Having seen something of its work at first hand, I single out for special praise the Chairman, Sir Charles Cunningham, and the Director, Mr. Critchley. They were supported superbly by civil servants seconded to the work from all kinds of Departments, who were prepared to work day and night, often on problems quite outside their normal experience.
Obviously, one pays tribute, too, to the large number of local authorities which I have already mentioned. First, there were the relatively few authorities, mostly the county councils, where the resettlement centres were. They gave great help, particularly with regard to health and the education of the children who had to be looked after for weeks—and in some cases months—before they could move on from the centres into the community. In addition, there were the other local authorities in the 400 or so reception areas I have mentioned. Many of them were hard-pressed urban authorities, in London and elsewhere, already with their hands full, so to speak, with their normal problems. They rose to the occasion, in all cases realistically and generously. Their special position was recognised by the Government in the exceptional financial arrangements which were made to reimburse them.
We should not overlook, either, what was done by private householders, many of whom offered accommodation—which was taken up—for the refugees. Then there were the volunteers. I saw a number of them at work from my own constituency in Cambridge. They were of all sorts and of all ages. One thinks of the WRVS and the Young CSV's, all of whom showed a magnificent response when the crisis happened. I saw them particularly at Stansted, when the aircraft were coming in during the first few weeks, and nearby at the initial resettlement centre at Stradishall, but the story was the same all over the country. Their work was very well backed up and organised by the Co-ordinating Committee for the Welfare of Evacuees from Uganda. The short tribute to the volunteers in the board's report was very well put, and I shall quote it to the House. In paragraph 10 the Board said:
It is probably no exaggeration to say that never since the war has this country seen voluntary effort extended so willingly, and on such a scale; nor can there be many instances of closer harmony between voluntary and statutory services working together to achieve agreed objectives.
We should not forget, either, the work done by the Uganda Asian Relief Trust, under the chairmanship of Lord Sainsbury, whose letter is reproduced as Appendix B of the report, saying that by the time it finished its work it would have helped about half of the entire number of refugees—small sums of money, certainly, but very useful in filling household gaps as they came to set up their new homes.
The last group which I single out for tribute is the Community Relations Commission and the local community relations committees which also did excellent work during the crisis and which have a continuing role in helping the Ugandan Asians to settle down in different parts of the country.
It is true that there have been criticisms of what was done. In my view, many of those criticisms have been rather carping and exaggerated. Even if some mistakes were made in an operation of this kind, I think it fair to say that, on the whole, it reflected great credit on the many thousands of people in this country who were involved.
Looking for a moment to the future, I an sure that we were right to wind up

the board at the time we did. The board agreed with this decision by the last Government. In paragraph 5 of its report it says that
it would be wrong in principle and damaging to the Uganda Asians themselves to create special permanent machinery for their assistance and by so doing to identify them as a separate section of the communities in which they are living.
I believe that comment to be right. The Uganda Asians want to fend for themselves; they want to merge into the community as vigorous self-supporting citizens. Their remaining needs can best be met by the normal agencies which meet similar needs in the indigenous population.
But I emphasise that with the winding-up of the board there was never intended to be any "washing of hands" by the Government of the remaining welfare of the Uganda Asians in this country. There must be continuing concern about that, because there is still much to do, and I wish to put four questions to the Minister, to which he can give answers either today or in correspondence.
First, will the Minister confirm that since the disbanding of the Uganda Resettlement Board, the Home Office is continuing as a kind of centre of co-ordination for any special action at Government level that may still be needed?
Second, may I ask about housing, which the Board in its report picks out as the most difficult problem. Certainly, that is the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and myself, when we were dealing with the crisis. There was overcrowding at the time, and refugees were taken in hurriedly by friends and others. Some overcrowding was obvious, particularly in a number of large conurbations. Many of the conditions in which they were living could be accepted only as temporary. How is this situation now going? Has there been any evening-out of the pattern of housing settlement, or any prospect of further evening-out?
Third, there is the problem of jobs. It is not only a question of what percentage of the refugees have found jobs—that is, the 85 per cent. the board mentioned—but whether they are increasingly being able to find jobs—perhaps after working initially somewhere else—in posts really suitable to their qualifications? Many of


them came here with high qualifications. In a number of cases there is scope for further training. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us something more about the latest position. He may also be able to tell us something about the work of the advisory trust which the board's report tells us was to be established to try to give help to Uganda Asians who might seek loans to set up in business on their own. I believe that that was a good idea in a modest way. I hope that the trust is already in operation, and that it will prove useful.
My fourth and last question is about the assets that were seized and kept in Uganda, one of the most deplorable parts of the whole disgraceful episode. What steps are the Government taking to get some or all of these assets over here? We must not give up this job. Nothing matters more than that for the individual prospects of thousands of the families who are now making a new life in this country. I should like an assurance that, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Government will keep up vigorous pressure until this money and these assets begin to come here out of Uganda.
I end by quoting the summing-up which the board wrote in paragraph 32 of its report:
We cannot claim to have resettled in any full sense all of the Asians who were expelled from Uganda in 1972 and who came to the United Kingdom. What we have aspired to do, in the period of little more than a year in which we have been in existence, has been to help to give them a first start in the community—more than a third of them in houses which we have found with the help of local authorities and private individuals in hundreds of areas where their prospects are good—and to ensure that the support they still require will be given them by those agencies which already exist to provide it. There is ample evidence that the vast majority of these new citizens are settling down and beginning with determination—and in many cases success—to make a new life. Many of them still need help. But they are learning—and learning fast —how to look after themselves.
As we acknowledge the work that was done by the Uganda Resettlement Board and the many other people who helped in this operation, let us express to the refugees the admiration of this House for their brave spirit and our hope that in this country they will build new lives of increasing happiness, satisfaction and prosperity.

12.44 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): The hon. Member of Cambridge (Mr. Lane) does the House a service by giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to all who had a share in solving the difficult problems that emerged after the decision of the President of Uganda to expel Asian citizens from that country.
He properly began by paying tribute to the people themselves. There is a sense in which this whole operation depended upon the tolerance of the British people in accepting those who came, but it also ought to be re-emphasised at this moment that those who came by and large had the right to come and that that right exists as an element of the citizenship that they share with us who are indigenous members of the community in this country. The Government should put on record that we recognise that right to come and that we shall honour it, and that that applies not only to Ugandan Asians of British citizenship but to those other Asians of British citizenship in East Africa to whom the pledge was given, and that, too, has implications for the future.
Like the last Government, we hope and believe that this transference of population can be made in an orderly way and that the special voucher system will continue. We have availed ourselves recently of the 500 extra vouchers held in reserve in order to assist those who are still in distress in Tanzania and Kenya, and we hope to review the whole matter of the arrangements in due course.
It ought to be said that although the tolerance of the British people is important, it is equally right that we should honour our commitment to give citizenship to these people. Therefore, in considering what is the effect of the transference of this amount of population, I do so not with the attitude of one giving charity to someone in distress, though that was undoubtedly the case, but in the way in which this country honours its legal obligations to those who came.

Mr. Lane: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting general comments about the situation. He said that 500 reserve vouchers were being brought into use to help relieve pressures. Will he confirm that the ceiling for vouchers for


heads of household remains—I think 3,500 per year was the figure—for all the people in this category in the different countries? I take it that all the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he is using up more of the vouchers within that ceiling, but not exceeding it.

Mr. Lyon: That is the present position and if there is any difference, an announcement will be made. At present 3,000 vouchers have been in use, but an extra 500 were authorised as a reserve and we have decided to use them in order to ameliorate the position for those in Tanzania and Kenya.
The effect of the removal within a much shorter time of 28,000 Ugandan Asians inevitably had enormous repercussions for our services in this country. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to many who took their part. I should like to reiterate his thanks and his warm appreciation of the work that was done by Sir Charles Cunningham and Mr. Critchley and their colleagues on the Uganda Resettlement Board, for the attitude of the local authorities which gave willingly to help those who came into their areas, and particularly the voluntary services and the public who befriended those who came. Inevitably, the problems have not been entirely solved. Inevitably, there are repercussions, but I accept the view of the board in paragraph 49 of its report:
Basically the problems of these families, although they did not come here of their own choice and in many cases arrived penniless, are the same problems as are being faced by large numbers of other people—problems of overcrowding, of stress of all sorts, of social and economic need.
The board was therefore in full agreement with the Home Secretary's directive to use the normal agencies in dealing with them.
Paragraph 50 goes on:
We have been asked—we have indeed asked ourselves—whether the resources available to these normal agencies are sufficient to enable them to meet the requirements of the Uganda Asians effectively. This seems to us to be part of the much wider question whether in all cases the resources of the agencies who are coping with the similar needs of immigrants or indigenous families are adequate. That wider question is hardly for us to answer.
I think that is right.
The questions put by the hon. Member for Cambridge are questions that one can put about any part of the immigrant community in this country. The real question is what this country is doing to ameliorate the position of immigrants who have come here and who have to be absorbed into our society. I accept the view of the board and of the previous Government that it would be wrong to create a special category of immigrant, namely, Ugandan Asian, and to provide these people with resources and facilities that were not available to other immigrant communities in the same position.
When one looks around the stress areas of our bigger cities where immigrants have settled one asks oneself whether the inner cities are capable of looking after the people now living within them. We are tackling that problem. It is a problem not only of immigrants but of indigenous members of our community living in areas of stress and deprivation, areas that have accumulated these problems over the years. The problems of housing and education, serious problems associated with coloured immigration, are problems that would face us if we had never had coloured immigrants. What they add to our problems are problems of language and culture that exacerbate difficulties already met. These problems, too, we are seeking to overcome.
But let me meet the hon. Member's request for information about the particular category of immigrant to which he refers. The work position is good. The number of Ugandan Asian refugees who were registered as unemployed in June was down to 497. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of those seeking employment now have jobs. About 12,000 Ugandan Asians originally registered for work with the Department and they represent 0·1 per cent. of the total of registered unemployed at the moment.
That is good. What kind of work they have obtained is still an open question. But here again the problem they face is a problem faced by any coloured immigrant, and it has to be tackled within the general framework of policies for dealing with discrimination in employment. It


is a problem which the Government are considering urgently and on which they are preparing their policies for an overall strategy.
But what has been made clear in some distressing cases in the East Midlands recently is that we have been too complacent in assuming that job discrimination does not exist on any great scale. Coloured immigrants have so far been fairly complacent about voicing criticism of their conditions and their wages in areas of discrimination, because they were happy to be here. That happiness will dissipate with the second-generation immigrant who has lived through our schools and who expects to have the same rights as his white contemporaries.
The most interesting aspect of recent events in the Midlands is that those who complained were mostly people from East Africa and most of them were under the age of 25. They are symbols of what we might expect—a passionate desire for equality voiced by people who are articulate in English, who understand their rights and who intend to stand up for their rights.
Unless we adjust out overall social and political policies to meet that desire for equality, we may expect increasing exacerbation of difficulties. Therefore, we must tackle this problem, and tackle it urgently. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Cambridge that most of the Asians are employed and there are very few who claim unemployment benefit.
It is not possible to give specific information about housing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. At no stage did we monitor the accommodation given for Ugandan Asians in particular, and especially when they found their own accommodation. An overall general picture is indicated in the board's final report.
I can say, however, that here again we are determined that there shall be an allocation of resources to the inner cities to provide better housing. We have begun that action by adjusting the order of priorities. The Government have made £350 million of public money available for local authorities to use to purchase housing in areas of housing stress. Some of the areas that will benefit most are

those in the inner cities where immigrants live. Equally, the attempts that the Government are making in the Housing Act to establish housing action areas will be designed to assist areas such as those where immigrants live—but again, not just immigrants, but all who live in deprived circumstances in areas of dereliction.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the advisory trust and about the problem of assets from Uganda. The advisory trust was a hopeful experiment to try to assist people who were in difficulties. I regret to say that it has foundered and that its work has been wound up before it was able to achieve anything of any great moment. I understand that there were negotiations with groups of bankers to see whether something could be done. However, in the final analysis that proved impossible.
Naturally, it would assist everyone, not only the Asians, but the indigenous community, if those who came here could bring with them the assets that they had in Uganda. Many had substantial assets, which they had to leave behind. We are doing our best to try to obtain compensation for those people. As the House will know only too well, there are substantial difficulties—not to say one major difficulty—in the way of having sensible policies in relation to Uganda.
The latest information I have is that the President of Uganda has agreed to make some kind of compensation for non-Asian assets that have been taken over. He has indicated, too, that Uganda is making rapid progress in the valuation of Asian assets. Therefore, there is some hope at least of improvement in due course.
Much depends upon our continuing relationship with Uganda, and no one can be sure about what it will lead to. We hope that in due course Asian emigrants from Uganda will have the opportunity of recovering some—we hope all —of the assets taken from them. That would be of substantial help in the further amelioration of their difficulties and their integration into British society.
I am sure that in due course we shall come to be thankful for the time when this country opened its heart and its assets to those who came, because they


have a substantial contribution to make to our lives here. They are already beginning to make that contribution, and, due to the very nature of the people and their particular skills, I am sure that they will go on making a considerable

contribution to our life in the years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock p.m.